From mail at joachim-breitner.de Thu May 5 09:09:32 2022 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Thu, 05 May 2022 11:09:32 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #500: Add implicit import proposal, Shepherd: Baldur Message-ID: <035c69c81b6fe9921600c053e2ee919b62e1837a.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear Committee, Add implicit import proposal has been submitted by Tristan de Cacqueray This is an interesting one: At first glance it looks quite un- haskellish, but it’s hard to poing out what’s, if anything, is wrong with it. I expect that the discussion will revolve not so much about technical issues, but more about best practices and our vision for Haskell’s look and feel. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/500 https://github.com/TristanCacqueray/ghc-proposals/blob/implicit-import/proposals/0000-implicit-import.rst I suggest that Baldur, as our newest committee member, gets to shepherd this one. 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/ From theghostjw at gmail.com Wed May 11 20:56:46 2022 From: theghostjw at gmail.com (John Walker) Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 06:56:46 +1000 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Any future plans for HasField redesign? Message-ID: Hello Committee, I was wondering if there are any near to middle term plans to move forward with hasField redesign which I believe is an enabler for setter with record dot syntax. The ticket ( https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/3257) has a milestone of 9.4.1 and it looks like the proposal is done ( https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/hasfield-redesign/proposals/0000-hasfield-redesign.rst) pending feedback some time ago but hasn't got to discussions yet ( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/0). thanks John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at well-typed.com Thu May 12 14:01:21 2022 From: adam at well-typed.com (Adam Gundry) Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 15:01:21 +0100 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Any future plans for HasField redesign? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, (I'm not on the steering committee, but since you asked about HasField...) The current status of the draft proposal to which you linked is that I'm still planning to finish it off and open a discussion PR, but that it needs spare time and dedicated attention, which is difficult to find! I'm pretty happy with the general idea but the details need some work. Hopefully I'll make progress on this at ZuriHac next month, but I don't want to guarantee anything. If anyone would be willing to help finish off the proposal, I'd be happy to chat. An issue that is not discussed in the proposal, but which we may want to reconsider, is that OverloadedRecordUpdate as currently envisaged is fork-like: it changes the meaning of record update syntax but both the traditional and overloaded forms have advantages. Thus it might be sensible to have a distinct syntax for overloaded updates. I've cleared the merge request milestone as it is no longer realistic to get the implementation into 9.4.1. All the best, Adam On 11/05/2022 21:56, John Walker wrote: > Hello Committee, > I was wondering if there are any near to middle term plans to move > forward with hasField redesign which I believe is an enabler for setter > with record dot syntax. The ticket > (https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/3257 > ) has a > milestone of 9.4.1 and it looks like the proposal is done > (https://github.com/adamgundry/ghc-proposals/blob/hasfield-redesign/proposals/0000-hasfield-redesign.rst > ) > pending feedback some time ago but hasn't got to discussions yet > (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/0 > ). > thanks > John -- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/ Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England From mail at joachim-breitner.de Mon May 16 19:59:33 2022 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 21:59:33 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #473: First-class existential types, Shepherd: Simon PJ Message-ID: <122925b449860d50063fea297d8c08f206d203bd.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear Committee, First-class existential types has been submitted by Richard https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/374 https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/existentials/proposals/0473-existentials.rst Exciting stuff! This feels, at least to me, like a proposal with major implications – not least because I believe it means that type equality will now involve some form of term equivalence, and may thus affect what kind of Core transformations are still type-preserving. Therefore I would suggest Simon PJ to shepherd this proposal. 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/ From mail at joachim-breitner.de Mon May 30 13:28:38 2022 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 15:28:38 +0200 Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Please review #496: Nothing {}, Shepherd: Eric Message-ID: <7783a6d393b9ba02830d820e8635f5f06cc94741.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Dear Committee, Empty records with {} have been proposed by John Ericsson https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/496 https://github.com/Ericson2314/ghc-proposals/blob/empty-record-wildcards/proposals/0000-empty-record-wildcards.rst This seems to be about straightening a corner case, so to say. I suggest Eric as the shepherd. 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/