[ghc-steering-committee] A few more pleas

Joachim Breitner mail at joachim-breitner.de
Wed Dec 9 13:40:15 UTC 2020


Am Mittwoch, den 09.12.2020, 12:17 +0100 schrieb Spiwack, Arnaud:
> Maybe GHC2021 shouldn't have these (it's not my opinion, but it's
> arguable). Since the value of GHC2021 is “conservatism” (then again,
> we seem to be adding in StandaloneKindSignatures and NamedFieldPuns,
> which do not sound very conservative to me). But then, they are the
> first two extensions that should be considered for GHC2022. Do we
> agree on this? Or would you rather see these stay in their standalone
> extensions forever? (which I would find, personally, rather alarming)

what I deduce from this discussion is that there is quite a lot of
discussion to be had, and I’d prefer to have that next round. Let’s
crawl before we walk, and get a GHC2021 out that nobody will object to.
When it comes to GHC2022, we can focus on the harder ones. Plus there
is one more year to ponder these issues in the back of our head.

What I also got from this discussion was learning why sometimes a
`where foo = 1000` works at different number types, and sometimes not.
It depends on whether I am using GADTs or TypeFamilies somewhere in the
file! Who’d have thought…


Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de

More information about the ghc-steering-committee mailing list