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

[Iavor Diatchki]

I do think that  reusing the record update syntax for the overloaded
monomorphic update is a mistake---it is not something I had noticed during
our original discussion.
-Iavor

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:37 AM Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210226/7c4c8fc2/attachment-0001.html>