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

[Simon Marlow]

I think the conclusion of the last round of discussion was to go ahead with
the implementation and use experience with that to understand the impact on
GHC and to refine the proposal.  We'll be in good shape if we can
demonstrate that mutable fields aren't too intrusive, and it'll need a
prototype implementation to be able to establish that.

The status of the proposal isn't blocking the implementation, I think the
limiting factor is cycles to work on it, that's all. I'm not sure what the
correct state to put the proposal in at this stage is - dormant perhaps?

Cheers
Simon

On 5 May 2018 at 22:06, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:

> Dear Ryan,
>
> what is the status of this proposal? It seems that it was not met with
> enthusiasm, but also not with opposition? Shall I mark it as accept?
>
> Cheers,
> Joachim
>
>
> Am Sonntag, den 11.02.2018, 00:43 -0500 schrieb Ryan Newton:
> > Reboot!  This has long sat idle, but I propose to now formally start the
> committee discussion period: mandatory 4 weeks, closing at end of day March
> 10th, or earlier if consensus occurs.  Let's use this email thread for that
> discussion.  In this mail I summarize public discussion and argue for
> "accept".
> >
> > In short, the proposal adds a way to have multiple mutable fields within
> a data-constructor, without the indirection of using IORef.  Second to
> "linear types", this proposal generated the most total comments during
> public discussion (107).  This level of discussion was good -- given that
> accepted GHC proposals so far are mostly syntactic (or API tweaks), this
> would be the first with major compiler backend & runtime consequences.
> >
> > Ed Kmett and Ryan Yates have demonstrated the applicability of this
> concept to data-structure implementation.  (Indeed, I think there's a good
> reason that almost all languages mutation with mutation are implemented so
> as to allow a single heap object to have multiple mutable fields within
> it.) During the public discussion, questions were raised about interactions
> with other features and implementation strategy -- in particularly changes
> to core.  But I believe that all major concerns were eventually answered.
> >
> >   -Ryan
> >
> > P.S. Iavor, Trevor, and Ryan Yates were all working on implementation of
> this feature at various points.  Not sure what the current status of
> implementation efforts are.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Joachim Breitner <
> mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > > Dear Committee,
> > >
> > > this is your secretary speaking:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8
> > > was brought before the committee, by our own Simon Marlow.
> > >
> > > I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, because he asked for it :-)
> > >
> > > 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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> --
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20180508/8a44fe00/attachment.html>