[ghc-steering-committee] #380 GHC2021: How to proceed?

[Iavor Diatchki]

OK, having looked at the table, I'd be fine with defining GHC2020 (or is
2021?) as >= 8.

Also, I don't think getting additional input from the community would add
any clarity to the process, at least not in ways significantly different
from what we've already discussed.

Just for fun, my two biggest "disappointments" are:
   * PolyKinds on by default, because I think that TypeInType is a mistake,
but I am ok with it as in practice it rarely matters
   * RecordWildCards not on by default, because it is a completely opt in
feature, which is extremely convenient on occasion, and I find the
arguments against it to be roughly equivalent to "I can think of ways to
abuse this feature, so you shouldn't use it".

What are yours?

-Iavor




On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 7:56 AM Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Sonntag, den 20.12.2020, 08:48 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Serrano Mena:
> > According to the proposal, we would have some community input at this
> > point, right? Maybe it’s a good moment to announce that we have
> > interim results and that people can discuss in the proposal PR.
>
> we _could_ do that, but the process as proposed intentionally limits
> community input to the hackage statistics and the survey.
>
> We already have long, hard to follow and not in all cases productive
> discussions among ourselves; would we really expect to get more clarity
> with more voices?
>
> Cheers,
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20201220/ed232263/attachment.html>