[ghc-steering-committee] Language Extension Policy – Round 1

[Eric Seidel]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, at 07:06, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:
> Q1: Are all the categories 1–5 relevant? If you would like to remove
>        some categories, which and why (free form)?

Yes, they all seem relevant.

> Q2: Is category 6 relevant?
> Q2.Y: If you found category 6 to be relevant: should it be its own
>            category, or should it be a subcategory of 1?
> Q2.N: If you found category 6 not to be relevant, in which category
>             would you classify OverloadedStrings? What about PolyKinds?
> Q3: Is category 7 relevant?
> Q3.Y: If you found category 7 to be relevant: should it be its own
>            category or should it be a subcategory of 5?
> Q3.N: If you found category 7 not to be relevant: in which category
>            would you classify MagicHash? What about UnboxedTuples?

I think categories 6 and 7 are basically the same thing. I think they are relevant, and that they are distinct from both categories 1 and 5. A while back I suggested adopting Racket's notion of "language level" to enable access to more advanced language features. I think categories 6/7 are this.

>  Q4: In which category would you classify Strict?

6/7

>  Q5: Is there any category that you feel is missing from the list? If
>        so, please argue (free form).

This feels pretty comprehensive to me.