[ghc-steering-committee] #380 GHC2021: What's wrong with Functional dependencies

Alejandro Serrano Mena trupill at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 13:40:22 UTC 2020

I voted "maybe", since I wasn't unsure about FunctionalDependencies. My
line of thought was "since only the creator of the class has to enable it,
it's not so terrible". On the other hand, I agree with your comment about
being properly guarded by syntax, which is sort of my golden rule.

About TypeFamilyDependencies, I think it's too early for inclusion. I don't
think the design has settled yet, in particular because you cannot write
very complex dependencies right now.

El vie, 4 dic 2020 a las 13:44, Spiwack, Arnaud (<arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>)

> Dear all,
> It seems that a number of us have voted against including
> FunctionalDependencies and  TypeFamilyDependencies.
> I don't understand why. They are properly guarded by syntax. I don't know
> any complaint against them FunctionalDependencies, at least, is as standard
> as it gets (there are functional dependencies all over the mtl).
> Is it an oversight? Or do some of us really believe that we ought to keep
> these out, and why?
> /Arnaud
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201204/3c7c25e7/attachment.html>

More information about the ghc-steering-committee mailing list