[ghc-steering-committee] Please review: Mutable constructor fields, Shepherd: Ryan Newton

[Simon Peyton Jones]

I don’t mean to be negative about it.  I’m sold on the motivation.  It just seems quite a deep-seated change (e.g. affecting transformations in Core because mutable constructors have identity) and I don’t have that satisfying “aha” feeling when all the pieces mesh together – something that is a hallmark of Haskell.

I wish I could propose a constructive alternative.  It’s tiresome when people just object on somewhat vague grounds but don’t offer any concrete alternatives.

Simon

From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Simon Marlow
Sent: 01 March 2018 08:49
To: Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review: Mutable constructor fields, Shepherd: Ryan Newton

Simon has provided a detailed review (thanks!) so I think we'll need some time to digest those comments and suggestions and modify the proposal. In light of that shall we put the proposal back into the discussion phase for now?
Cheers
Simon

On 1 March 2018 at 05:17, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de<mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>> wrote:
Hi,

Am Freitag, den 23.02.2018, 15:22 -0500 schrieb Ryan Newton:
> Ok, I'm not hearing any strong objections and over the long course of
> discussion in various venues, reactions have been mostly positive.
> Since committee discussion here has died down, I move to go ahead and
> accept this proposal if there are no further objections.

it has been quiet here, but I see new activity on
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F8&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cda6f622af1f445a397cd08d57f51491f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636554909454432423%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=AcpE8whWwCIWKuNvG%2Fmwvjay0zXbPC0mP6zxk168TAk%3D&reserved=0>

Is this a sign that the proposal is not yet as polished as would hope
for?

Joachim

--
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de<mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
  https://www.joachim-breitner.de/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cda6f622af1f445a397cd08d57f51491f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636554909454432423%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=Lj%2Fxq4DdTDxtnnLOZ83qwgJED7%2BTNHTP054tFT5TtTI%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list
ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org<mailto: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/20180301/6f09aeaa/attachment-0001.html>