[ghc-steering-committee] Please review: deriving for empty, Shepherd: Iavor Diatchki

[Iavor Diatchki]

OK,  I think we've heard from quite a few members of the committee,  and
the consensus appears to be that we should accept the proposed changes, but
guard them with a separate language pragma.

I'll post a comment to the thread, requesting that the author makes the
change, and then mark it as accepted.

-Iavor







On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:44 AM Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 on the proposal, with an extension flag.
>
> I think we should continue to be strict about language extension flags.
> Extension flags allow the programmer to signal very clearly which features
> they're using, which allows us to write code that will be correctly
> rejected with a useful error message both by older versions of GHC and by
> hypothetical other compilers that don't support the extension.
>
> If we start to relax the policy of having extension flags, then it's hard
> to know where to stop. Yes we have already diverged from Haskell2010, but
> so far there was a compelling reason to do so in each case: e.g. we had no
> good way to support both versions of the Monad hierarchy, and for
> NondecreasingIndentation I think we had been accepting the extended syntax
> (without the flag) already in previous versions.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
>
> On 17 August 2017 at 17:47, Christopher Allen <cma at bitemyapp.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd tend to agree that we should strictly respect the standard,
>> eschewing "benign" augmentations. Part of my discomfort with this is
>> my experience talking to programmers who hand-waved effects in general
>> as benign. Without a formal definition of benign such as exists in the
>> Semantic Versioning standard I'd just as soon not add something like
>> this without putting it behind an extension.
>>
>> I'm a soft +1 on the proposal as an extension.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Richard Eisenberg <rae at cs.brynmawr.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Aug 16, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Joachim Breitner <
>> mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> that touches on a more fundamental question: How strict do we want to
>> >> be with the “every divergence from the standard requires an extension”
>> >> rule.
>> >
>> > I think this is a great question to ask, but I would want more
>> community feedback on this point than just us in the committee. My stance
>> is that, absent this discussion, we should stay quite strict on that rule.
>> >
>> > (In the discussion, I would argue that adherence to the standard is
>> less necessary.)
>> >
>> > Richard
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> >
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chris Allen
>> Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20170828/8ff347d3/attachment.html>