[ghc-steering-committee] merging #111: Linear Types

[Alejandro Serrano Mena]

I'm OK with merging this since all loose threads seem to have been worked
out.

El vie., 3 abr. 2020 a las 13:16, Richard Eisenberg (<rae at richarde.dev>)
escribió:

> Hi committee,
>
> On Oct 22, 2018, we conditionally accepted the linear-types proposal,
> which I have been shepherding.
>
> Proposal:
> https://github.com/tweag/ghc-proposals/blob/linear-types2/proposals/0000-linear-types.rst
> Discussion: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/111
> Conditional acceptance:
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/111#issuecomment-431944078 (you
> may need to "load more items" many times to view this, sadly)
>
> Since the acceptance, there has been continued debate. Some of this has
> been about the syntax, which was left as a loose thread in the conditional
> acceptance. That debate has now been resolved, and the proposal reflects
> the final outcome of that. There is no comment declaring the new syntax
> accepted, but
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/111#issuecomment-519175000 describes
> my recommendations, which were unopposed in the committee discussion.
>
> Recently, there has been some talk of rejecting the proposal. Considering
> we have already accepted the proposal, discussion of rejection seems out of
> scope. (Of course, anyone is free to make a separate, new proposal trying
> to revoke this one.) I I think it would clarify the status of this proposal
> if we merged the proposal text, labeling it clearly as conditionally
> accepted -- especially now that all remaining issues are around
> implementation issues, not design issues. (I'm including the specification
> of type inference as an implementation issue, because there is, as yet, no
> attempt to specify type inference beyond the implementation. It is hoped
> that we will rectify this, in time.) In anticipation of this, I've updated
> the proposal text to include the acceptance conditions.
>
> So: may we merge? I almost just did it on my own, taking rights as
> shepherd, but I did not want to make a unilateral move that might be seen
> as controversial. (Given that we have accepted the proposal, I don't think
> it is controversial. But then unilateralists often don't consider
> themselves to be controversial.)
>
> If this email gets silence, I'll likely just merge on my own early next
> week.
>
> Thanks!
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200403/3f8c4628/attachment.html>