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

[Iavor Diatchki]

This never bothered me personally, but I have no strong feeling about it
either way.

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:30 AM Vitaly Bragilevsky <bravit111 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am in favor of this proposal. As for the name of the extension, my
> suggestion is 'FlexibleImports', then we could allow even more flexibility
> in import declarations in the future. Anyway, I am also ok with the current
> versions (although the shorter the better).
>
> Regards,
> Vitaly
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:32 AM Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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/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
>>> 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
>>>   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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> 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/20190308/5a8a558a/attachment.html>