[ghc-steering-committee] #536: Type-level literals as a separate language extension, rec: accept

[Simon Peyton Jones]

>
> Unless I am missing the point, I can’t really make an informed decision
> before we have concluded our policy discussion, in particular, on
> whether we want to go towards a future where everyone is welcome to
> turn extensions on and off to build their little fine-grained preferred
> language islands, or whether that is something we want to avoid and use
> extensions only as stepping stones towards a ((eventually) single)
> future Haskell, at the cost of having to tell some people that they
> can’t expect that every possible dialect of Haskell will be supported.
>

I don't think these two are incompatible.  Even if we have a "single future
Haskell" in mind, it's fair enough for people to switch things on and off
if they want.   Offering flexiblity at low cost seems OK to me; other
things being equal, it's not for us to say what they should or should not
want.  (If the implementation or maintenance cost was high I might think
again, but I don't think it is in this case.)

Simon

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 at 16:58, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, dem 06.03.2023 um 16:04 +0300 schrieb Vladislav Zavialov:
> > Does anyone have objections? If not, I will mark the proposal
> > accepted in 2 weeks.
>
> not a full fledged objection yet, but I am unsure how that fits with
> the overall direction we have for namespaces, as outlined in
>
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0378-dependent-type-design.rst
>
> It this meant to be a short-gap measure that helps us to get to towards
> a bolder destination?
>
> Or is it a half-way step for people who like type-level computation,
> but don’t want to go all the way, and is expected to stay around?
>
> (Or maybe I am missing the point.)
>
> Unless I am missing the point, I can’t really make an informed decision
> before we have concluded our policy discussion, in particular, on
> whether we want to go towards a future where everyone is welcome to
> turn extensions on and off to build their little fine-grained preferred
> language islands, or whether that is something we want to avoid and use
> extensions only as stepping stones towards a ((eventually) single)
> future Haskell, at the cost of having to tell some people that they
> can’t expect that every possible dialect of Haskell will be supported.
>
> 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/20230308/68d8208c/attachment.html>