[ghc-steering-committee] RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps

[Simon Marlow]

It's still a bit hard (IMO) to understand what precise changes each
proposal would make to the syntax, but I don't want to hold things up so
I've added an AYE.

Cheers
Simon

On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Chris, Cale, Simon
>
> I wonder if you might have a moment to respond to this email?
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> *Sent:* 09 March 2020 09:56
> *To:* ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> *Cc:* Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* RE: RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps
>
>
>
> Colleagues
>
> Thanks for your various replies.   I have
>
>    - Added a couple more examples (please check)
>    - Split (C2a) and (C2b) – thank you Joachim for filling out the list.
>    - Add a Notes section that identifies some consequences, hopefully
>    objectively.
>    - Added a list  at the end where you can add your AYE when happy.
>
> Can you review, and Christopher, Richard, Cale, Simon, Eric, Alejandro,
> Arnaud: please add AYE or suggest further changes.
>
> This is painstaking but I think it is clarifying. I have found writing out
> the examples is quite helpful.  Feel free to suggest more if you think
> there are some cases that are unclear.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> *Sent:* 06 March 2020 17:59
> *To:* ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> *Cc:* Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* RecordDotSyntax proposal: next steps
>
>
>
> Colleagues
>
> I’m sorry to have been dragging my feet on the records proposal.   First
> there was half term holiday, and then the ICFP deadline, so I’ve been out
> of action for several weeks.
>
> It’s pretty clear that we are not going to achieve 100% consensus, so the
> right thing to do is to vote, using the single-transferrable-vote scheme
> that Joachim runs.  It’s worth striving for consensus, because the debate
> can be clarifying (and has been!).  But I don’t regard non-consensus as a
> failure.  These things are all judgement calls, and people’s judgement can
> legitimately differ.   Voting lets us nevertheless reach a conclusion.
>
> So here’s what I propose
>
>    - I’ve put up a list of choices for us to vote on here
>    <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1MgovHRUUNjbuM4nM8qEe308MfbAYRh2Q8PxFHl7iY74%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Cc4d44b2094af411a0db008d7c41020da%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193445856931710&sdata=Z7Bn2UD3HWSEJs70ANTNbS6IbvI6%2BuRHXRiGDYlR7xs%3D&reserved=0>,
>    informed by our most recent email exchanges. The first thing is to ensure
>    that this list is
>
>
>    1. *Complete*: no choices that people really want are omitted.
>       2. *Clear* *and unambiguous*.  When we vote we must know exactly
>       what we are voting for!
>
> *Can you all respond about that, including “Aye” if you think it is both
> complete and clear*.
>
>    - Once we are all satisfied, I’ll invite you to vote.  The easiest way
>    to do so might be to edit the Google doc directly, so there’s a single
>    point of reference.
>
> Please also let me know if you think we should be doing anything else.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Simon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20200313/9cbfb85a/attachment.html>