[ghc-steering-committee] #190: Module qualified syntax, recommendation: accept

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

First of all, I totally agree that the proposed syntax is better.

However, TBH, I don’t think it is a particularly good idea to change syntactic warts by way of a language extension. If we were discussing actually changing the language definition, that would be a different matter. But we are not. We just add an alternative and potentially cause confusion.

Hence, I think, this is a bad idea.

Cheers,
Manuel


> Am 08.03.2019 um 09:31 schrieb Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com>:
> 
> Proposal #190 is about accepting the syntax
> 
>   import A.B.C qualified
> 
> instead of (or in addition to) the existing syntax
> 
>   import qualified A.B.C
> 
> I think it's widely accepted that the original syntax was a mistake. I don't need to rehash the rationale for the change here, iit's described pretty well in the proposal and elaborated in the discussion.
> 
> The question for us is really: is it worth changing? There are costs:
> - A new extension flag, which itself has costs (extra documentation, a new thing that people need to understand)
> - new code using the extension doesn't compile with older compilers
> - all the existing code in the world uses the old convention
> - etc.
> 
> Reasonable people can differ here. The discussion on the proposal has representatives from both sides of the camp.
> 
> Personally, the current syntax annoys me almost every day. It's already a small cost on everyone, and I think we need to move forwards even if there are costs in migrating. So, I'm going to recommend that we accept this proposal.
> 
> We might want to reconsider the name of the extension: QualifiedImportsPostpositive seems like a mouthful. Perhaps ImportQualifiedPost is enough?
> 
> Cheers
> Simon
> 
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 12:09, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>> wrote:
> Dear Committee,
> 
> this is your secretary speaking:
> 
> Module qualified syntax
> has been proposed by Shayne Fletcher
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/190 <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/190>
> https://github.com/shayne-fletcher-da/ghc-proposals/blob/module-qualified-syntax/proposals/0000-module-qualified-syntax.rst <https://github.com/shayne-fletcher-da/ghc-proposals/blob/module-qualified-syntax/proposals/0000-module-qualified-syntax.rst>
> 
> Simon Marlow has already volunteered to shepherd.
> 
> Please reach consensus as described in
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process>
> I suggest you make a recommendation, in a new e-mail thread with the
> proposal number in the subject, about the decision, maybe point out
> debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with
> you.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joachim
> -- 
> Joachim Breitner
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ <http://www.joachim-breitner.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190308/4a820643/attachment.html>