[ghc-steering-committee] Fwd: Please review #640: Fix quantification order for a `op` b and a %m -> b (Recommendation: Accept)

[Simon Peyton Jones]

Great summary.

I am generally not a fan of enshrining historic coincidence in the language
when
the cost of fixing it is bareable. On the other hand this is such a minor
detail
that I don’t think it will matter much in either direction.


That's exactly why I am on the fence!

Chris, Simon M, Matthias, any opinions?

We may just have to vote, as Malte says

Simon


On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 23:42, Malte Ott <malte.ott at maralorn.de> wrote:

> Okay, let me summarize the voiced opinions:
>
> We have agreement on the change to multiplicities.
>
> On the infix type operator we are a bit stuck:
>
> * Richard, Eric and I are in favor of fixing the bug.
> * Adam and Arnaud are in favor of staying stable, living with the exception
> * Simon was on the fix side but switched to undecided, waiting for more
> opinions
> * Moritz preferred staying stable, but deferred to Simon before his switch
>
> Overall slightly more votes for the change but subjectively hold less
> strongly
> than the opinions against it.
>
> Since I am unclear on how to proceed I’d love to hear more opinions
> (especially
> of committee members who haven’t voiced theirs about this proposal).
>
> I am generally not a fan of enshrining historic coincidence in the
> language when
> the cost of fixing it is bareable. On the other hand this is such a minor
> detail
> that I don’t think it will matter much in either direction.
>
> If we cannot come to a consensus soon I will put it a to a vote. We
> shouldn’t spend too much time on this.
>
> Best
> Malte
>
> On 2024-03-19 15:12, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:26, Simon Peyton Jones <
> > simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But I think you are now saying that *even if a left-to-right order was
> > > "best", *there is a long-standing bug in GHC that puts `b` first in (a
> > > `b` c`), and it's not worth the risk of change.   So instead we should
> > > institutionalise the bug into the spec.
> > >
> >
> > This is, at least, my position. This is a bug fix, but the bug is so
> tiny,
> > that even if the breakage is rare, it's not necessarily worth it, and it
> > may be better to bake the exception into the spec. I'm weakly on the side
> > that baking the exception is better.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240321/eea7881c/attachment.html>