[ghc-steering-committee] Please review #319: NoFallibleDo proposal, Shepherd: Eric Seidel

[Eric Seidel]

Hi all,

My wife and I just checked into the hospital to have our second child, so I’m going to be short on time for committee duties for a few weeks. I think it would be best to reassign this proposal so we don’t keep the authors waiting. 

I reviewed the proposal over the weekend and left some thoughts on GitHub. I’m supportive of the direction — partial patterns in do-notation are more consistent with the rest of the language — but I thought it would be a stronger proposal if we had a syntax for controlling the failure behavior. This would give people who currently rely on the MonadFail desugaring a cleaner migration path. John has another proposal (#327 iirc) exploring how that syntax might look, I suggested building on top of that proposal or combining the two. 

Eric

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 1, 2020, at 04:04, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Committee,
> 
> this is your secretary speaking:
> 
> NoFallibleDo proposal
> has been proposed by Cale
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/319
> https://github.com/obsidiansystems/ghc-proposals/blob/no-fallible-do/proposals/0000-no-fallible-do.rst
> 
> I propose Eric Seidel as the shepherd.
> 
> Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in 
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process
> 
> Thanks,
> 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