[ghc-steering-committee] Status

Iavor Diatchki iavor.diatchki at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 16:50:40 UTC 2021 

Hello,

This is the author's response to my query:

So, the situation seems to be as follows:
>
>    - if we want dependent types (as described on that Wiki page), I would
>    like to resubmit
>
>
>    - if we do not want them, I will retract the proposal and close it
>
> I need to know the committee’s stance on dependent types to proceed here.


I don't think this proposal is the right place to discuss dependent types,
so I propose that we reject the proposal.  To ensure progress, I'll do so
within a week, so please discuss before then, if you think otherwise.

-Iavor



On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:02 PM Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, I posted a note on the git-hub, asking @int-index what he wants to do.
> In case anyone needs a refresher, this is the discussion we had when I
> submitted this to the committee back in November:
>
>
> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2020-November/001859.html
>
> another somewhat relevant discussion that followed was this:
>
> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2020-November/001865.html
>
> and here is a link to the proposal and the git-hub discussion:
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/281
>
> -Iavor
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:13 PM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is about #281 visible dependent quantification.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our role is to accept, reject, or push back to the author for revision.
>> We should do so in a timely way.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I were the shepherd I’d be asking the author “Do you want to revise
>> the proposal at all in the light of all the discussion, or do you want the
>> committee to decide yay/nay based on the proposal as it is now?”
>>
>>
>>
>> He might want to revise/discuss a bit.  But if he says “please decide on
>> it as-is” then I think you should make a recommendation: accept or reject.
>> (I don’t think the discussion has led to any specific revisions that we
>> want to see.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I sense you would recommend reject.   That’s totally fine. Then the rest
>> of us have to make up our minds.  We might end up with a more nuanced
>> position like “we are not ready to accept this now, so if you want a
>> decision now, it’d be no; but feel free to ask the same question again in
>> six months time”.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you don’t feel able to be the shepherd, that’s fine too: tell Joachim
>> and he’ll finger someone else!
>>
>>
>>
>> But, by hook or by crook, I do think we should do something, not just sit
>> on it.  Tom’s nudge is helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* 05 March 2021 19:42
>> *To:* Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
>> *Cc:* Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>;
>> ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status
>>
>>
>>
>> I am being nudged to do something with this proposal,  but I am not sure
>> what...   Is the rest of the committee OK with moving it back "revisions
>> required", and if so what revisions would we like?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would be quite happy if someone else wanted to shephard this.  As I
>> mentioned before, I don't have much interest in DH, so I have not followed
>> the really long discussion related to that, and if and how it might relate
>> to #281.
>>
>>
>>
>> My recommendation for the moment would be:
>>
>>    * This seems like a useful feature independent of DH, so it would be
>> nice to come up with a concise notation to use the feature on its own,
>> without worrying about DH.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let me know what you think, as I am not sure what is the
>> committee's stance on the proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Iavor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:54 PM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> There has been a broad further discussion.
>>
>> What we advertise is that, rather that leave a proposal “under committee
>> review”, we will push it back to the author with an invitation to resubmit
>> when the discussion has died down and they feel ready to submit a proposal,
>> revised in the light of the discussion.  That’s different to reject… it
>> means that there is an ongoing debate so it’s not a good time for the
>> committee to make a decision.
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ghc-steering-committee <
>> ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org> *On Behalf Of *Iavor Diatchki
>> *Sent:* 18 February 2021 16:47
>> *To:* Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>> *Cc:* ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status
>>
>>
>>
>> On #381 I think the idea of visible quantification makes sense every now
>> and then, but I don't like the concrete details of the proposal: the magic
>> lifting of terms to types seems quite complicated, and using `type` as an
>> explicit herald doesn't look nice.  So I don't think it's the right design,
>> and therefore I suggest we reject the proposal.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sure that others would disagree as apparently this is an essential
>> part of dependent Haskell.   I have not followed the large discussion that
>> Richard created, as I am not particularly interested in the design being
>> proposed, so perhaps someone else should champion this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aslo, I am not sure if I am actually on the committee, as I thought my
>> term had expired?  That might be more reason for someone else to pick it up.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Iavor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:32 AM Joachim Breitner <
>> mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Committee,
>>
>> another status update, because why not.
>>
>> A small reminder: These mails have two sections, one that’s a delta
>> since last status, but below is a summary of all proposals we have to
>> act on. Please at least scroll through that on each status mail to see
>> if you are listed, maybe you forgot something (or I made a mistake).
>>
>> So here’s the delta since last month.
>>
>>  * GHC2021 defined! Yay!
>>
>>  * Bylaws merged! Yay
>>
>>  * Simon², Iavor, Richard and me had thus their terms expired.
>>
>>    The Simons, as key members, wanted to continue and were
>>    voted back in.
>>
>>    The others are now “expiring”, until the next nomination round
>>    concludes. Alejandro is going to run that process.
>>
>>  * we were asked to review these proposals:
>>    #390: Fine-grained pragmas, Shepherd: Vitaly
>>
>>  * we have a recommendation from the shepherd about:
>>    #368: Warn on prefix/suffix operators (accept)
>>
>>  * we have sent the following proposals back to revision
>>    - none -
>>
>>  * we decided about the following proposals
>>    #313: Delimited continuation primops (accept)
>>    #387: The Char kind (accept)
>>    #368: Warn on prefix/suffix operators (accept)
>>
>> We currently have to act on the following 5 proposals, down by 2.
>>
>> ## Waiting for committee decision
>>
>> #381: Visible 'forall' in types of terms, Shepherd: Iavor
>>       Recommendation was to reject, but discussion went into the more
>>       abstract “whither dependent Haskell”. But what does this mean
>>       for this proposal?
>>       Iavor, can you pick this up again?
>>
>> #369: Add sumToTag# primop, Shepherd: Eric
>>       Essentially accepted, waiting for feedback from the author on
>>       final tweaks. Eric, care to nudge the author, or just do it?
>>
>> #302: \of, Shepherd: Cale
>>       No new discussion yet. It seems there was some confusion, which
>>       was cleared up by Tom, and Cale said he’ll pick it up now again.
>>
>>
>> ## Waiting for Shepherd action
>>
>> #367: Clarify primops using unboxed sums, Shepherd: Simon Marlow
>>       Simon said he’d reject it on the Github PR. Still waiting
>>       for the discussion to start on the mailing list.
>>
>> #390: Fine-grained pragmas, Shepherd: Vitaly
>>       Still kinda new, but a recommendation would be good soon.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Joachim
>> --
>> Joachim Breitner
>>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0f8040e69348485e5e2808d8e00ed1af%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637505701561371493%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=hAny2jNi%2BPKhgMYqiwt4HyNDkvOSFSHKYfYKmrJ3qOk%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0f8040e69348485e5e2808d8e00ed1af%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637505701561381491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=U6m9laT7pV9QEuzCyFXY2oZT4RFt2yFhDWuJE7YgIMM%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20210306/955a40b5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ghc-steering-committee mailing list