[ghc-steering-committee] Record dot syntax: vote results

[Alejandro Serrano Mena]

Since I voted C2a as first option, let me try to explain what lead me to my
vote.

Which is one main thing: for me the syntax "r .x", with a space in between
the element and the field name, looks completely alien and different from
what other languages do [1,2,3]. Even though we can implement that in a
clever way by making ".r" a special kind of operator, I think that for most
people the notion of "field access" is ingrained as a special part of the
syntax of a language.

Furthermore, several examples in C4 are very surprising to me. For example,
"f r .x" meaning "f (r.x)". Once again, I expect field access be part of
the same "joint expression" as in other languages.

As a final note, if we have ".b" for fields, what would stop us from making
".f" just special syntax for "post-application of any function"? I mean, we
could also have something as "numbers .sum" as meaning "sum numbers", in
the same way that "person .age" is equivalent to "age person". I am not
arguing at all that we should go that way, but rather that for many reason
I think that making "field access" less clever, and more similar to other
languages, is the right decision.

Alejandro

[1] C# Language Spec ->
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/language-specification/expressions#member-access
[2] F# Language Spec, page 81 ->
https://fsharp.org/specs/language-spec/4.1/FSharpSpec-4.1-latest.pdf
[3] OCaml syntax, records ->
https://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/expr.html#sss:expr-records

El lun., 30 mar. 2020 a las 20:03, Eric Seidel (<eric at seidel.io>) escribió:

> I'd be very interested too.
>
> I also think it would be good to summarize our discussion here, in
> particular the rationale for C2a, and post the summary on the GitHub
> thread. I noticed some concerns on the GitHub thread about the lack of
> consensus and the omission of `map .lbl xs` (IIRC we did discuss this
> option and there actually *was* consensus that we didn't like it), we
> should address those concerns too.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, at 13:06, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> > Thanks Joachim! I'd be curious the hear an opinion from someone who
> > prefers `C2a` to `C4`, about why it is better? To me `C2a` just looks
> > like a more complicated version of `C4`.
> >
> > -Iavor
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:58 AM Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev>
> wrote:
> > > I think this is a fine conclusion to the saga, personally. C2a is one
> of the more middle-of-the-ground options, and it's refreshing to have an
> election that chooses such a candidate.
> > >
> > >  It's been slow, yes, but I think this phase of the saga has
> highlighted the strengths of the committee process, in that we had a
> deliberate, carefully reasoned vote.
> > >
> > >  Thanks for running the vote algorithm, Joachim, and for your careful
> shepherding, Simon.
> > >
> > >  Richard
> > >
> > >  > On Mar 30, 2020, at 5:48 PM, Joachim Breitner <
> mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  > Dear Committe,
> > >  >
> > >  > thanks all for voting. The ranking of votes is now
> > >  >
> > >  > C2a > C2b > C4 > C1 > C7 > C6 > C3 > C5
> > >  >
> > >  > In particular C2a beats every other options by 7:4 or more, and is
> > >  > therefore the result of this poll.
> > >  >
> > >  > You can see more statistics at
> > >  > https://www.condorcet.vote/Vote/AB23CE70AC/
> > >  >
> > >  > So, does this conclude this saga?
> > >  >
> > >  > 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
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > >
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200330/3697a814/attachment-0001.html>