[ghc-steering-committee] Committee Discussion : Lazy unboxed tuples

[Ryan Newton]

Dear Committee,

The public discussion
<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35> for this one
<https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/unbanged-strict-patterns/proposals/0000-unbanged-strict-patterns.rst>
has happened, now for 4 weeks of committee discussion and final
accept/reject.

In that public discussion, you can see on Jan 11 options broken down as
(1),(2),(3), with this proposal being (1).  This seems to have stopped in a
weird place where there was some substantial argument for (2) and (3) in
the latter half of the comments, but the proposal is for (1).

Richard, one bit that threw me off was this:


*"we should require the bang even on bare variables, but that would break a
lot of code I think."*

Because that makes it seem like in spite of this cleaning-up proposal, GHC
still has a basically inconsistent position on how to interpret
variable-bindings of unlifted kind in patterns.

Discuss?

  -Ryan



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> it is by Richard, I just got the URL wrong. The right pull request is
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35
> sorry for that.
>
> Using this thread is fine.
>
> Joachim
>
> Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2017, 10:58 -0400 schrieb Ryan Newton:
> > Just to clarify, this is proposed by a user "winterland".  I.e. not
> > Richard, right? In the process document it is the author that "brings
> > it before the committee" correct?
> >
> > I checked and it looks like our process document does not specify the
> > means of our committee discussion.  I propose we discuss this one
> > right here on this thread, which we've already got sitting in our
> > inboxes.
> >
> > Best,
> >   -Ryan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breit
> > ner.de> wrote:
> > > Dear Committee,
> > >
> > > this is your secretary speaking:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/45
> > > was brought before the committee, by our own Richard.
> > >
> > > I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, just to rotate this role
> > > properly.
> > >
> > > Ryan, 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/
> > >
> >
> >
> --
> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
>   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170711/2bc55c21/attachment.html>