[ghc-steering-committee] Modification to record dot syntax propsal

[Richard Eisenberg]

> On Feb 26, 2021, at 4:32 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org> wrote:
> 
> Friends
> 
> There has been a bit of discussion, but it seems to have died down again.  Any other views?
> 
> Richard, you were a bit negative – has the intervening discussion reassured you?
> 

I was negative on the motivation, but not the proposal. I'm a bit skeptical of the end goal of a -XRecordDotSyntax that implies a bunch of other flags, but that's not on the table at the moment. I'm in support of the extension breakdown as proposed and vote to accept.

Richard

> I’d like us to decide pretty soon…. no point in delay.
> 
> Simon
> 
> From: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> 
> Sent: 23 February 2021 15:06
> To: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> Cc: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> Subject: Modification to record dot syntax propsal
>  
> 
> Friends
> 
> Please see this proposal #405 to split RecordDotSyntax into two extensions <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F405&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7Caa27192c62ab448a4e2c08d8d80c8937%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637496895641978235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oJDy%2BiYI4kEaC%2FUJIfZbph2JnZr%2FTK%2F5aZqA6djwF3A%3D&reserved=0>
> It is a small modification of #282 on record dot syntax.   The top comment gives links to the versions of the proposal before and after the change.
> 
> The main payload is:
> 
> Instead of RecordDotSyntax, have to independent extensions, OverloadedRecordDot and OverloadedRecordUpdates.
> I recommend acceptance of this proposal, but invite the committee’s view on one point (the final bullet below). Here is the thinking
> 
> RecordDotSyntax is the extension that we will eventually want programmers to user. It will probably ultimately implyNoFieldSelectors. But we aren’t quite ready make that choice yet. So we don’t want to specify exactly whatRecordDotSyntax does yet.
> So we want another, less ambitious, extension to enable record-dot syntax itself, and its desugaring into getField; and similarly for record updates.
> This patch to the proposal goes just a little further, by dis-aggregating into two independent extensions,OverloadedRecordDot and OverloadedRecordUpdates.
> An alternative, if the committee prefers, would be to have a single extension (say, OverloadedRecords).
> Please express your opinion.  This should not take us long.   (Technical and clarification questions would be best done on the Githhub thread, as always.)
> 
> Simon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210226/7a1c2b7e/attachment.html>