[ghc-steering-committee] #540: parallelism semaphores, recommendation: *accept*

[Moritz Angermann]

> On balance, I think we should accept this proposal and not let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.

I agree with this. An incremental improvement is an improvement. And if
need/interest/funding is there can be iterated upon.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 5:11 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Sonntag, dem 12.02.2023 um 14:01 -0500 schrieb Eric Seidel:
> > I have two minds about this proposal. On the one hand, it seems
> > likely to leave performance on the table compared to the alternatives
> > discussed. But on the other hand, this proposal has already been
> > implemented and validated by Well-Typed, and it seems like a small
> > amount of additional complexity for GHC to adapt. (Though I'd love
> > for someone with more knowledge of GHC internals to opine on the
> > internal complexity.)
> >
> > On balance, I think we should accept this proposal and not let the
> > perfect be the enemy of the good.
>
> I agree. Especially given that there is an implementation, I see no
> good reason why we shouldn’t trust the implementors and authors’s good
> sense in their design choices.
>
> 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/20230213/44c45661/attachment.html>