[ghc-steering-committee] Wrapping up Constructor Synonyms and Pattern Synonym Signatures

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

I support both of the decisions that you propose.

Manuel

> Christopher Allen <cma at bitemyapp.com>:
> 
> Thank you to those of you that replied. I'd like to preserve the
> syntactic distinction that construction synonyms eliminates. Your
> statements have shifted me to a reject on
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/41
> 
> If no one has objections, I'd like to move to a reject as I think
> enough time has elapsed that it's unlikely to get any defenders. Speak
> up if you feel something was missed.
> 
> 
> Regarding https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/42
> 
> Summarizing peoples' replies so far:
> 
> Joachim: In favor, as long as :i does the right thing. Seems
> under-specified, suggested the following possible relationships
> between signature of the pattern and the constructor:
> 
> * May not differ in anything but the constraints.
> * Must have the same return type.
> * Must have the same outer type constructor in their return type.
> * No relation.
> 
> Roman: In favor of this proposal under the "May not differ in anything
> but the constraints" policy and against it under any of the other
> three.
> 
> Simon PJ: In favor of #42 alone, but no holes. Agrees with Roman that
> that type of the constructor should be the same as that of the
> pattern.
> 
> Simon Marlow: I believe the statement was in favor of #42 contra #41,
> but I didn't get a sense of how strongly or how Simon felt about the
> particulars.
> 
> 
> I agree with and want to highlight Roman's point regarding,
> 
>> A looser relationship between the constructor function and the pattern makes code significantly harder to read and the proposal doesn't include any justification for such a looser relationship so I would go with the strongest requirement possible.
> 
> 
> It seems to me like the respondents so far are in favor of #42, but
> want the strongest variant. I'd like to move to accept #42 with the
> "May not differ in anything but the constraints" variant. Any
> objections?
> 
> 
> Thank you Joachim for the status update last week.
> 
> Thanks you for your time everyone,
> Chris Allen
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee