<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">There seems to be general consensus to accept the amendment, apart from Simon's comment on a minor alternative.<br><br>Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor alternative to a future proposal?<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:08, Adam Gundry <<a href="mailto:adam@well-typed.com">adam@well-typed.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I also agree that we should accept. We need some name for the unit <br>
unboxed tuple data constructor, and MkSolo# seems to fit with what we <br>
currently have.<br>
<br>
Simon's suggestion that we rethink the naming of the tuple type <br>
constructors seems to be a separate question. I think it warrants a new <br>
proposal/amendment if anyone feels strongly enough, rather than blocking <br>
this proposal, especially given that the original proposal's type names <br>
are already implemented.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
On 14/03/2024 10:33, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:<br>
> I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the canonical <br>
> names would have been preferable in the original proposal.<br>
> However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the <br>
> constructor.<br>
> <br>
> We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the <br>
> ambiguity described in the amendment.<br>
> Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to <br>
> the original proposal.<br>
> <br>
> I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a <br>
> separate amendment later.<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones <br>
> <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the<br>
> constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the amendment.<br>
> <br>
> S<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack<br>
> <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the<br>
> constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?<br>
> <br>
> (that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the<br>
> name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more sense)<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones<br>
> <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception<br>
> for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just asking.<br>
> <br>
> Simon<br>
> <br>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack<br>
> <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> In favour.<br>
> <br>
> Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this<br>
> particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a<br>
> further change to the original proposal that you'd like<br>
> to see.<br>
> <br>
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones<br>
> <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Thanks Matthias<br>
> <br>
> I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment<br>
> exploring a minor alternative<br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147639" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147639</a>>.<br>
> <br>
> Simon<br>
> <br>
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll<br>
> Gissurarson <<a href="mailto:mpg@mpg.is" target="_blank">mpg@mpg.is</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mpg@mpg.is" target="_blank">mpg@mpg.is</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Greetings committee!<br>
> <br>
> In<br>
> [proposal #638](<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638</a> <<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638</a>>),<br>
> @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix<br>
> form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in<br>
> proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple<br>
> syntax](<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475</a> <<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475</a>>).<br>
> <br>
> Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to<br>
> construct a `Solo# a`.<br>
> But the question is: what would be the prefix<br>
> form of this constructor?<br>
> It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already<br>
> defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!<br>
> <br>
> This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#`<br>
> constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the<br>
> prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous,<br>
> after care was taken to clarify that a fully<br>
> applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty<br>
> printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer confusion.<br>
> <br>
> It seems quite straightforward to me, so:<br>
> <br>
> I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <<a href="http://mpg.is/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mpg.is/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant<br>
Well-Typed LLP, <a href="https://www.well-typed.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.well-typed.com/</a><br>
<br>
Registered in England & Wales, OC335890<br>
27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">-- </span><a href="http://mpg.is/" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small" target="_blank">Matthías Páll Gissurarson</a><br></div></div>