[ghc-steering-committee] #477: Unicode ellipsis, recommendation: accept, please vote

[Simon Peyton Jones]

I really don't have a well-informed opinion here. I'm happy to accept
provided it doesn't add an unreasonable complexity burden to the
implementation (which I doubt it will).

Simon

On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 15:35, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Dear Commitee!
>
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/477
>
> https://github.com/kindaro/ghc-proposals/blob/unicode-ellipsis/proposals/477-unicode-ellipsis.md
>
> It turns out this simple change isn’t so simple after all. Maybe just
> Wadler’s law again… Anyways, it seems all arguments have been brought
> before, and it’s up to us to make a decision. A concise summary could
> be:
>
> Ignat suggests that under -XUnicodeSyntax, the `…` symbol can be used
> instead of `..` (e.g. import Prelude (Maybe(…)), [1…10]). This is
> roughly a very reasonable thing to do under -XUnicodeSyntax, at least
> for the former use, where `..` clearly is an ellipsised omission.
>
> The wrinkle is the range syntax: Vlad researched that there the two-dot
> syntax has historic precendent going back to Knuth and is used in other
> languages, and that it is _not_ just a bad ASCII approximation of a
> three dot … ellipsis, but really it’s own symbol, and pushed back
> because of that. He does not contest the use of … in export/import
> statements, though.
>
> A possible rebuttal is that despite the existence of a two-dot-range
> notation in some contexts, it is not _that_ universal, and it is still
> a form of omission for which an ellipsis (…) is a semantically suitable
> symbol.
>
> Pragmatically, I’d argue it would be a bad idea to allow … instead of
> .. only in import/export lists, but not range syntax.
>
> So my recommendation is as before (but maybe a bit more weakly): Don’t
> let perfect get in the way of good and accept the proposal, despite the
> history aspects of the [1..10] syntax, to improve -XUnicodeSyntax for
> the Unicode fans out there, and keeping the mapping between Unicode
> syntax and ASCII syntax in Haskell one-to-one.
>
> Vlad said on Github he is still opposed, but more weakly. The existence
> of this surprisingly long discussion may be an indication that this
> feature is not worth it.
>
> To avoid an out-of-proportion discussion (for a change of that relative
> now implication), I suggest to simply vote.
>
> I have seen +1 from Arnaud, Richard, and SPJ, and a -1 from Vlad. Let
> me know if any of you changed their mind, and the others: let me know
> which way you are leaning.
>
> Cheers,
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20220315/9fe75103/attachment.html>