[ghc-steering-committee] CUSKs and StandaloneTypeSignatures
arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io
Fri Dec 4 14:40:33 UTC 2020
I agree that implementation bugs are not what we want to worry about. But
straightforward or not, StandaloneKindSignature's design has barely been
tested. It wouldn't be the first extension that we believed to be
unproblematic (I do believe it is!) and be surprised that there are some
dark corners. So I'd say let's give it a little time.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev> wrote:
> I think StandaloneKindSignatures should be included. It's true that there
> may be implementation bugs, but the design of them is really quite
> straightforward, so I don't expect design bugs. And I think it's design
> bugs that should hinder inclusion, much more than implementation bugs (of
> which I know none, at the moment).
> On Dec 4, 2020, at 9:15 AM, Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
> CUSKs need to go. I see no place for them in the defaults.
> I want StandaloneKindSignature in the default too, but I think that they
> are not battle-tested enough to be included this time around.
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:45 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
>> Maybe some part of this discussion got lost.
>> Simon PJ writes:
>> Let's *not* have CUSKs. We are trying to get rid of it... it'd be deeply
>>> strange to "bless" it in GHC2020.
>>> StandaloneKindSignatures is clearly the Right Thing. I'm sure we'll want
>>> it long term.
>>> It's a very graceful fit with PolyKinds.
>> I would really like StandaloneTypeSignatures to be part of the default,
>> and remove CUSKs. Thoughts on this? Is it too early?
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-steering-committee