[ghc-steering-committee] Extra Commas

[Simon Peyton Jones]

But it's actually *incompatible* with TupleSections, so how shoule
	(True,)
be interpreted if both are on?

S

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>
|  On Behalf Of Christopher Allen
|  Sent: 18 April 2019 04:19
|  To: Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io>
|  Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
|  Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Extra Commas
|  
|  I spoke with Matt, he's fine either way with or without tuples.
|  
|  I'd prefer "with tuples" for consistency. I use tuples sometimes, but
|  don't care about sectioning.
|  
|  On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
|  >
|  > I favor accepting the proposal, with or without tuples. I've been
|  writing a bit of Rust recently, and agree with Chris about the ergonomics
|  of trailing commas.
|  >
|  > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:31, Joachim Breitner wrote:
|  > > Hi,
|  > >
|  > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.04.2019, 13:38 -0500 schrieb Christopher Allen:
|  > > > I gave my recommendation for ExtraCommas, acceptance of the
|  > > > original proposal as written. I talk with the proposer almost
|  > > > every day so I know where he stands. He still thinks it's worth
|  > > > doing and would like to see it accepted. I think ExtraCommas
|  > > > merits acceptance. If we can't achieve consensus on it then it
|  > > > should be rejected so it gets cleared off the slate. I'm not
|  > > > inclined to argue a syntactic extension like this, but I will say
|  this:
|  > > >
|  > > > The proposal captures a nice design element that we've seen work
|  > > > very well ergonomically in Rust. We're never going to make the
|  > > > same decisions with the same tradeoffs as a totally different
|  > > > language but any time there is a relatively isolated "good idea"
|  > > > like this, I'd like to see us try to take advantage of that and
|  > > > see if it works for us.
|  > >
|  > > thanks for picking this up.
|  > >
|  > > The most contentious point, besides whether its worth the bother at
|  > > all, was the interaction with TupleSections. Which gives us three
|  > > options, I think:
|  > >  * reject
|  > >  * accept, covering tuples (and making it conflict with
|  > > TupleSections)
|  > >  * accept, not covering tuples.
|  > >
|  > > No decision is absolutely wrong, none is obviously right.
|  > >
|  > > Maybe we should simply do a vote, to get it decided? Simons (as
|  > > Chairs), what do you think?
|  > >
|  > > Cheers,
|  > > 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-commi
|  > > ttee
|  > >
|  > > Attachments:
|  > > * signature.asc
|  > _______________________________________________
|  > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
|  > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
|  > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committ
|  > ee
|  
|  
|  
|  --
|  Chris Allen
|  Currently working on http://haskellbook.com
|  _______________________________________________
|  ghc-steering-committee mailing list
|  ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
|  https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee