[ghc-steering-committee] Modifiers and #512: NoFieldSelectors

[Richard Eisenberg]

Concur. Let's boldly go into the future with modifiers. :)

Thanks, Vlad.

Richard

> On Dec 11, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If we choose to revise, I volunteer to implement Modifiers in time for GHC 9.12
> 
> Like Joachim, this changes the situation a lot.  Thank you for offering.  You are an excellent implementor, and if you say you'll do it, I'm sure you will.  Don't forget that, to be useful for the author, the modifiers need to be in Template-Haskell-generated syntax too.
> 
> With that in mind:
> 
> * [ x] Revise the proposal to use modifiers-based syntax and then accept
> 
> I'm sure the author will be happy to use modifier syntax -- he just needs to be sure that doing so won't block the feature and your offer gives him that surety.
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 12:40, Vladislav Zavialov <vlad.z.4096 at gmail.com <mailto:vlad.z.4096 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear Committee Members,
> 
> Our previous discussion regarding #512 was inconclusive.
> 
> Thread 1: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-November/002991.html <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-November/002991.html>
> Thread 2: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-December/003015.html <https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2022-December/003015.html>
> 
> #512 is the proposal that introduces per-declaration, per-constructor, and per-field NoFieldSelectors annotations.
> 
> I'm not quite sure how to summarize the discussion because everyone seems to have a unique view. But it all revolves around a syntactic issue: should the proposal use pragma-based syntax or modifiers-based syntax? 
> 
> Here are two facts to inform your opinion:
> 
> 1. The Modifiers proposal is accepted, and it makes sense to use it for the proposed feature
> 2. The Modifiers proposal is, however, unimplemented
> 
> So at the moment #512 says that we'd first introduce the pragma-based syntax, and when Modifiers are implemented we could deprecate the pragma-based syntax in favor of Modifiers.
> 
> I am *strongly* opposed to introducing a feature that we know is destined for deprecation. But not everyone shares this attitude, apparently, so let's vote.
> 
> Here are the options. Select all that you find acceptable (multiple-choice):
> * [ ] Accept the proposal with pragma-based syntax, then deprecate it and switch to modifiers-based syntax
> * [ ] Accept the proposal with pragma-based syntax, do not switch to modifiers-based syntax
> * [ ] Revise the proposal to use modifiers-based syntax and then accept
> * [ ] Reject the proposal regardless of syntax
> 
> Before you vote, let me try to sway you towards the "revise" option. If we choose to revise, I volunteer to implement Modifiers in time for GHC 9.12. I believe Modifiers are a splendid idea and I envision many good uses for them.
> 
> Vlad
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee <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/20231214/d5fb88b5/attachment.html>