[ghc-steering-committee] Please review #220: QualifiedImports, Shepherd: Simon M

[Simon Marlow]

Hi Arnaud,

Please rest assured I don't consider this to be an inconsequential
stylistic change at all. Quite the opposite! Indeed, the fact that it has
huge consequences is why I've been taking it so seriously.  I don't want to
rehash the debate, but let me just say that I think this has been a
worthwhile conversation to have, and it might well be one that we revisit
in the future.

Cheers
Simon

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 07:53, Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As one of the author of this proposal. I am, unsurprisingly, against
> rejecting it. Though it seems I'm rather in a minority here, let me add one
> last argument to try and sway the general opinion. Being understood that
> being an author, this argument cannot, in any way be considered as “a vote”
> or any such thing.
>
> Human psychology is powerful. As it happens, we have a very strong
> tendency to choose whatever course of thought or action requires the least
> mental effort. Defaults require very little mental efforts, so we naturally
> will gravitate towards default. This is why, for instance, almost every
> Swedish worker is part of a union, while almost every French worker isn't:
> in Sweden, unionising is opt-out, whereas in France, it's opt-in. That's
> also why putting apples in front of sweet deserts in a school restaurant
> will result in more children eating fruits rather than cakes.
>
> Back to our case: the overwhelming majority of Haskell packages are
> designed to be used unqualified (and also do almost all of their imports
> unqualified). Now, either unqualified import are really that much better,
> or the default has an enormous influence. As I previously mentioned, in
> Ocaml, a fairly similar language, qualified is the default, and almost
> every libraries are designed for qualified imports, and import their
> modules qualified. So I'd wager it's the default.
>
> As a software architect, I do actually spend a bunch of my code reviews
> saying: you should import qualified. It would be a much more effective and
> powerful message to simply set the default imports as being qualified in my
> projects. For me, the change in this proposal would really be a very
> significant change.
>
> Now, the committee may decide that this is still not worth the confusion
> implied by having two incompatible syntactic conventions out there. That's
> entirely fair! I just don't want anybody to walk out of this conversation
> with the feeling that this proposal is an inconsequential stylistic change.
>
> /Arnaud
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:04 PM Sandy Maguire <sandy at sandymaguire.me>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm happy with your reasoning, Simon, and am also in favor of rejection.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:23 AM Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear steering committee -
>>>
>>> The discussion following my earlier suggestion to reject the proposal
>>> has petered out. Taking into account the discussion, it still seems to me
>>> that we should reject the proposal, so I've posted on the thread to this
>>> effect:
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/220#issuecomment-531666589
>>>
>>> Any further comments before we close it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 08:19, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear steering committee -
>>>>
>>>> I am inclined to reject this proposal, so as per the new committee
>>>> process I posted the rationale on the github thread:
>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/220#issuecomment-508414602
>>>>
>>>> You may want to consider the proposal and offer opinions while we wait
>>>> for the authors' rebuttal. It's a very simple proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 08:55, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Committee,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is your secretary speaking:
>>>>>
>>>>> QualifiedImports
>>>>> has been proposed by Arnaud Spiwack and Guillaume Bouchard
>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/220
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/tweag/ghc-proposals/blob/qualified-import/proposals/0000-default-qualified-import.rst
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose Simon M as the shepherd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please reach consensus as described in
>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
>>>>> In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be
>>>>> rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps
>>>>> described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the
>>>>> proposal” in the above link.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I'm currently travelling the world, sleeping on people's couches and
>> doing full-time collaboration on Haskell projects. If this seems
>> interesting to you, please consider signing up as a host!
>> https://isovector.github.io/erdos/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190917/011524ea/attachment-0001.html>