[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #111: Linear Types

[Vitaly Bragilevsky]

Now I get it, thank you for clarification. I agree with your
recommendation.

Vitaly

вт, 28 авг. 2018 г., 19:39 Richard Eisenberg <rae at cs.brynmawr.edu>:

>
>
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 9:32 PM, Vitaly Bragilevsky <bravit111 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I don't understand the meaning of "the road towards acceptance". Doesn't
> it mean discussing the proposal forever? I think we should accept it
> instead as it is or at least set strict timeframe for the final decision.
>
>
> This is a good point. The truth is that the committee has no experience
> dealing with a proposal of the size of this one. It's hard (for me) to
> accept this proposal as is, because it's not a full specification. The big
> missing piece is inference. We also don't have a solid description of how
> much complexity the implementation will have to adopt. Yet, it would be
> very unfortunate for the authors to put in a ton of time into writing a
> paper, a proposal, and a prototype implementation only to get turned down.
> So, my understanding is that I'm recommending something of a conditional
> acceptance: we say, as a committee, that we're pleased with the general
> direction of travel and to encourage the authors to keep working. This
> means that we expect to accept, barring something large and unforeseen. The
> difference between conditional acceptance and outright acceptance is that
> it gives the committee further opportunities to suggest amendments to the
> proposed change. (Even an accepted proposal can effectively get
> retroactively denied if, say, the implementation requires a 10% slowdown on
> all programs to support an esoteric feature.)
>
> Does this help to clarify?
>
> Richard
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20180828/0acb9ab0/attachment.html>