[ghc-steering-committee] #392: Clarify modifiers design principle (recommendation: acceptance)

Thu Jan 27 13:28:59 UTC 2022

 Two weeks instead of one have passed, and nobody has raised objections.

@Joachim: should I merge it, or are you the one doing that?

Regards,
Alejandro

El 8 ene 2022 17:32:31, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com> escribió:

> Dear Committee,
> There has been no movement about this proposal (even after the New Year
> holidays). If there’s nothing against it, I’ll accept the proposal next
> Saturday (so there’s still one week to think about it).
>
> Regards,
> Alejandro
>
> El 23 dic 2021 15:41:26, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
>> Dear Committee,
>>
>> As far as I understand, the proposal now allows annotations before
>> classes/instances/types/… to appear either in its own line or before the
>> thing, by making semicolons optional (which would be introduced during
>> parsing if we use a newline).
>>
>> I think the proposal is ready for acceptance, if no more problems pop up.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alejandro
>>
>>
>> El 17 dic 2021 23:18:35, Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev> escribió:
>>
>>> I've updated the proposal to include an optional semicolon:
>>> https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/clarify-modifiers/proposals/0370-modifiers.rst
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like the idea of allowing the semicolon, but I believe it should be
>>> optional, as I stated on GitHub:
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390#issuecomment-878296938
>>>
>>> I'm content to add the (optional) semicolon to #392.
>>>
>>> I don't know about the practical ramifications. Vlad may be best
>>> positioned to answer that.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> Richard has now updated the proposal, but only Arnaud has commented on
>>> it. I think this requires a few more eyes, since it will permeate the
>>> language once people start using linear types, and we are already thinking
>>> about introducing modifiers in other parts.
>>>
>>> In fact, I’ve realised that there’s a (grammar) conflict between this
>>> proposal and https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/390 (the
>>> fine-grained pragmas for type classes and instances). This proposal defines
>>>
>>> topdecl ::= {modifier} 'type' simpletype '=' type
>>> | {modifier} 'data' [context '=>'] simpletype ['=' constrs] [deriving]
>>> | {modifier} 'newtype' [context '=>'] simpletype = newconstr [deriving]
>>> | {modifier} 'class' [scontext '=>'] tycls tyvar ['where' cdecls]
>>> | {modifier} 'instance' [scontext '=>'] qtycls inst ['where' idecls]
>>>
>>> But #390 defines (note the ; at the end of the modifiers block):
>>>
>>> modifiers : {- empty -} | ('%' qtycon)* ';'
>>> cl_decl : modifiers 'class' tycl_hdr fds where_cls
>>>
>>> I guess we should sort this out before accepting any of them.
>>>
>>> Alejandro
>>>
>>> El 28 jun 2021 21:26:45, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>>> Richard, will you take care of making those small changes to the
>>>> proposal? That way we could mark this as accepted.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alejandro
>>>>
>>>> El 28 jun 2021 9:01:28, Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I believe that Richard and I are in agreement now. I don't think
>>>>> all the conclusions have been added to the proposal yet, though; but
>>>>> whatever's left, it's fairly minor.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:29 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena <
>>>>> trupill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> This discussion has been dormant for some time, but it’s time to
>>>>>> revive it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard, Arnaud, did you manage to reach conclusion about the
>>>>>> modification to the proposal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from that, is there any other concern about the proposal? As I
>>>>>> said in my original message, this is a very small amendment to an
>>>>>> already-existing proposal, so if we accepted the previous one I see no
>>>>>> problem in this one. I’ll wait until Richard and Arnaud get back on the
>>>>>> issue, and then assume that silence for a week is acceptance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 11 jun 2021 14:55:41, Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that my discussion with Richard has come to a conclusion (it
>>>>>>> should incur a small modification to the proposal).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a very small (amendment to a) proposal, let's find a consensus
>>>>>>> on this one quickly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:26 AM Spiwack, Arnaud <
>>>>>>> arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've commented on the PR [
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392#pullrequestreview-657652189
>>>>>>>> ] the changes on the syntax of lambda expressions are not motivated at all,
>>>>>>>> I think at the very least there should be a discussion in the Alternatives
>>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But mostly, I'm worried about the implications/interactions that
>>>>>>>> these changes have with linear types.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I'll be off for the rest of the week starting tonight, so I'll be
>>>>>>>> back on this conversation on Monday, most likely)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Alejandro Serrano Mena <
>>>>>>>> trupill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Committee,
>>>>>>>>> This proposal seems a natural extension of #370, covering some
>>>>>>>>> additional cases (modifiers to classes and other declarations) that we’ve
>>>>>>>>> found along the way. My recommendation is acceptance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Alejandro
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4 May 2021 at 09:41:56, Joachim Breitner <
>>>>>>>>> mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Committe,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clarify modifiers design principle
>>>>>>>>>> has been proposed by Richard
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/392
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is an amendmend to #370, see the PR description for links to
>>>>>>>>>> diffs
>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I propose Alejandro as the shepherd, as he shepherded #370 before.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20220127/d19a3166/attachment.html>