[ghc-steering-committee] Record dot syntax: time to vote

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 24.03.2020, 14:08 -0400 schrieb Eric Seidel:
> I noticed the same thing, I don't see anything remotely resembling a
> consensus in the votes.

yes, this is concering. I wondered about putting C1 for the good reason
that there obviously is not a good solution. But then I decided to put
trust in the voting system, i.e. if an option will beat C1 by a
majority, then that option hopefully is better than rejecting.

>  Just out of curiousity Joachim, does the Schulze method have any
> metric of how close or far from a consensus the votes are? If so, I'd
> be very interested to see what it says about the votes here.

No hard metric, but we will see how “close” the winner will beat each
other option.


> Let me also take a moment to explain why I voted for C4 as my first
> choice, since it seems to be particularly polarizing. The two factors
> that pushed me to favor C4 are its simplicity and its consistency
> with the rest of Haskell's record syntax. 


After making my score, I noticed that the three options I put before C1
are precisely the three options that (I belive) are “simple and
consistent”, and which could be explained by a short “just like”
reference to an existing language feature:

 * C4: Just like record construction/update
 * C5: Just like function application
 * C2a: Just like module-qualified names.

Ah, I see Iavor has more or less the same. It always feels good to not
have a solitary opinion.

Cheers,
Joachim


-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/