[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #638: Prefix form for MkSolo# (Recommend Accept)
Simon Peyton Jones
simon.peytonjones at gmail.com
Mon Apr 8 16:22:16 UTC 2024
Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor
alternative to a future proposal?
yes
Simon
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:19, Matthías Páll Gissurarson <mpg at mpg.is> wrote:
> 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/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240408/7c9125ad/attachment.html>
More information about the ghc-steering-committee
mailing list