[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #638: Prefix form for MkSolo# (Recommend Accept)
Matthías Páll Gissurarson
mpg at mpg.is
Sun Apr 7 21:18:19 UTC 2024
There seems to be general consensus to accept the amendment, apart from
Simon's comment on a minor alternative.
Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor
alternative to a future proposal?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:08, Adam Gundry <adam at well-typed.com> wrote:
> I also agree that we should accept. We need some name for the unit
> unboxed tuple data constructor, and MkSolo# seems to fit with what we
> currently have.
>
> Simon's suggestion that we rethink the naming of the tuple type
> constructors seems to be a separate question. I think it warrants a new
> proposal/amendment if anyone feels strongly enough, rather than blocking
> this proposal, especially given that the original proposal's type names
> are already implemented.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 14/03/2024 10:33, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:
> > I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the canonical
> > names would have been preferable in the original proposal.
> > However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the
> > constructor.
> >
> > We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the
> > ambiguity described in the amendment.
> > Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to
> > the original proposal.
> >
> > I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a
> > separate amendment later.
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones
> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the
> > constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?
> >
> >
> > Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the amendment.
> >
> > S
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack
> > <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>> wrote:
> >
> > Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the
> > constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?
> >
> > (that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the
> > name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more
> sense)
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones
> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com
> > <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception
> > for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just
> asking.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack
> > <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > In favour.
> >
> > Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this
> > particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a
> > further change to the original proposal that you'd like
> > to see.
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones
> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com
> > <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Matthias
> >
> > I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment
> > exploring a minor alternative
> > <
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147639
> >.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll
> > Gissurarson <mpg at mpg.is <mailto:mpg at mpg.is>> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings committee!
> >
> > In
> > [proposal #638](
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638 <
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638>),
> > @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix
> > form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in
> > proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple
> > syntax](
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475 <
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475>).
> >
> > Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to
> > construct a `Solo# a`.
> > But the question is: what would be the prefix
> > form of this constructor?
> > It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already
> > defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!
> >
> > This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#`
> > constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for the
> > prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous,
> > after care was taken to clarify that a fully
> > applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty
> > printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer
> confusion.
> >
> > It seems quite straightforward to me, so:
> >
> > I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
--
-- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20240407/37acd2db/attachment.html>
More information about the ghc-steering-committee
mailing list