[ghc-steering-committee] Please review: Eval class, Shephard: Richard

[Christopher Allen]

I'm not convinced either. Generally if a silent `seq` is biting you
the problem was partiality and not insufficient lightness of the soul.
It seems like it would change sharing behavior as well, which is not
good. This affects a lot of code with unreachable branches they can't
reasonably get rid of. Often this is code that is performance
sensitive and depends on the particulars of how things are getting
shared.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Iavor Diatchki
<iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am not very convinced about the utility of this proposal.  Also, I think
> that the current specification could use more details about how the system
> should work.   I wrote a comment on the pull-request thread with more
> details.
>
> -Iavor
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is your secretary speaking:
>>
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/27
>> was brought before the committee. I propose Richard as the Shepherd.
>>
>> Richard, please reach consensus as described in
>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
>>
>> I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out
>> debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with
>> you.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Joachim
>>
>> --
>> Joachim Breitner
>>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Chris Allen
Currently working on http://haskellbook.com