<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">I had a long conversation with Arnaud about it. I think he is planning revisions</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Simon</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 21:57, Jakob Brünker via ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</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"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>There has been some discussion on the github thread since I presented this to the committee, but it has now quieted down, so it would be great to get some more opinions from you all on this proposal. So far I've only heard from Sebastian.<br><br></div><div>Thanks,<br></div><div>Jakob</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 9:40 AM Sebastian Graf <<a href="mailto:sgraf1337@gmail.com" target="_blank">sgraf1337@gmail.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"><div dir="ltr"><div>After multiple lengthy discussions that brought forth examples that IMO better motivate the proposal, I retract my earlier vote.</div><div>However, since there are multiple points of design disagreement between Arnaud and me, I cannot vote in favour of acceptance either and will abstain from voting.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Sebastian<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mo., 20. Jan. 2025 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Graf <<a href="mailto:sgraf1337@gmail.com" target="_blank">sgraf1337@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I vote to return the proposal for revision. <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/621#issuecomment-2601848567" target="_blank">I listed my feedback in the thread</a>, but the gist is:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
While I am sympathetic to the goal of introducing linearity annotations
to constraints, simply because it is a logical extension of <code>-XLinearTypes</code>,
I am afraid I do not feel motivated after having considered the
examples in the proposal. <br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In fact, I think the examples overpromise on
the utility of linear constraints and the problems it solves have
simpler, more direct solutions.
</blockquote><div><br></div><div> Cheers,</div><div>Sebastian<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Di., 14. Jan. 2025 um 23:45 Uhr schrieb Jakob Brünker <<a href="mailto:jakob.bruenker@gmail.com" target="_blank">jakob.bruenker@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear committee,<br><br></div><div>Arnaud Spiwack and Jack Hughes propose to introduce linear constraints.</div><div><br></div><div>These work analogously to linear functions - as can be seen with the new syntax, which is %1 =>, reflecting the existing %1 ->. The motivation is that these constraints make it possible to design linearly typed APIs that are more convenient to use: Without the linear constraints, tokens would have to be passed manually into each function in these cases.</div><div><br></div><div>The proposal also introduces dupable classes, which can be used multiple times even when they appear in a linear context, but cannot be passed to an unrestricted function. This is necessary to make some API designs work, see the proposal for details.<br><br></div><div><br></div><div>To me, it seems that this proposal or something like it is necessary to unlock the full potential of linear types. The proposal lays out why monadic API designs don't provide the same benefits, and while there are potential future GHC developments that could make using it even more convenient (existential types, strict let improvements; see proposal), I believe it would already be sufficiently useful with today's GHC to be a valuable addition. Thus, I recommend acceptance.<br><br></div><div>Please read through the proposal and voice your opinions.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Jakob</div></div>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<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>