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

[Chris Dornan]

I can go either way. We should make the linear change of course. Both Simon and Adam make good arguments for accepting and rejecting the infix operator aspect.

I would probably be tempted to stick with the status quo but am happy	to accept the whole proposal — as that requires no further change I am coming down on that side — to accept the whole proposal unless someone objects.

Chris

> On 21 Mar 2024, at 10:11, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20240321/2cdca345/attachment-0003.html>