[ghc-steering-committee] Status

Iavor Diatchki iavor.diatchki at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 05:58:00 UTC 2021 

I will wait a few more days to see if anyone else expresses an opinion,
otherwise I'll do as Simon suggests.

Could someone clarify what does #281 have to do with dependent types?   The
example that was brought up, and I think is pretty reasonable, is `sizeOf`
from the `Storbale` class:  I might want to write `sizeOf @Bool`.  Is the
plan to require that dependent types are enabled to write stuff like that?

-Iavor



On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:35 PM Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev> wrote:

> I have now submitted #378 for a committee decision (though I will forgive
> Joachim if he missed the notification among the 200 comments on that
> thread). So perhaps we can tackle all of this together.
>
> Richard
>
> On Mar 8, 2021, at 8:54 AM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I would suggest that rather than “reject” (which sounds like “we don’t
> want this, don’t resubmit it”), we push it back saying that we agree that
> it’d be better to settle #378 first.  So we we’ll mark it as “needs
> revision” not because we have anything specific to suggest, but so that
> it’s back in the author’s control.  He should feel free to re-submit
> (perhaps revised in some way, as he sees fit) once #378 is resolved.
>
> Simon
>
> *From:* Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 06 March 2021 16:51
> *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
>
>
> 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
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fpipermail%2Fghc-steering-committee%2F2020-November%2F001859.html&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0b9f9dd78f934d620c5e08d8e0c0012f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637506462581487239%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2inDHN90f7OQ9XIcd76l50Lwwp6axEUZVdea%2BoRFZzg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> another somewhat relevant discussion that followed was this:
>
> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2020-November/001865.html
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fpipermail%2Fghc-steering-committee%2F2020-November%2F001865.html&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0b9f9dd78f934d620c5e08d8e0c0012f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637506462581497234%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=k4jiWTo11nNFH6zHyw7oYMFfyl0kxkQEsXKSueeC2Mk%3D&reserved=0>
>
> and here is a link to the proposal and the git-hub discussion:
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/281
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F281&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C0b9f9dd78f934d620c5e08d8e0c0012f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637506462581497234%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=X7tkk61XrEd9utRxcQjA3Eh3Wi3cDXuJdMae%2BBcx3gM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> -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%7C0b9f9dd78f934d620c5e08d8e0c0012f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637506462581507230%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gsdKkpp3AhJz2ins9uuctT%2FGf6rr2bScSHFWyX3jFhM%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%7C0b9f9dd78f934d620c5e08d8e0c0012f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637506462581517226%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=BY04FgtL9RHpjI6frr%2BOYfxwPkW5yjN2DeRyv2JaKN4%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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20210308/61bc08e5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ghc-steering-committee mailing list