[GHC] #10478: Shorter import syntax

[GHC]

#10478: Shorter import syntax
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
        Reporter:  acowley           |                   Owner:
            Type:  feature request   |                  Status:  new
        Priority:  normal            |               Milestone:
       Component:  Compiler          |                 Version:  7.10.1
      Resolution:                    |                Keywords:
Operating System:  Unknown/Multiple  |            Architecture:
                                     |  Unknown/Multiple
 Type of failure:  None/Unknown      |               Test Case:
      Blocked By:                    |                Blocking:
 Related Tickets:                    |  Differential Revisions:  Phab:D1238
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by acowley):

 No, I need to stop this exercise in futility. I canvassed IRC and received
 broad support, I canvassed on twitter and received broad support, I
 canvassed on haskell-cafe and received mixed support. I did the work of
 analyzing public code to characterize how common the confusing case would
 be months ago. This is support from nearly a hundred people for a minor
 language extension that breaks absolutely nothing. I have never seen so
 much voting for a GHC language extension. The code is now available with
 tests and documentation updates.

 Despite the small text of the original ticket above, it has been mis-
 characterized as breaking existing code time and time again, even today on
 the Phabricator discussion. You have now linked to a reddit post on what
 is actually an alternate proposal (`andAs`). When I follow your link, I
 see a +10 post saying -1 linking to sarcastic posts arguing that syntactic
 changes are unacceptable from an individual who cheers for (::Type)
 syntax, I see a +9 post that's +1 for shorter syntax, and a +8 for shorter
 syntax with my proposal (again, on a thread for an ''alternate''
 proposal).

 I think @goldfire's proposal, though well intentioned, largely misses the
 point of offering more concise syntax, and includes more confusing cases.
 The stark lack of support it has received despite being from a regular GHC
 developer ought to be telling, yet is here dismissed as an odd
 coincidence.

 The patch is available. It does what I have written here, in the commit
 messages, and in the updated GHC documentation. The last time this went
 through the mailing list I received abusive mails for days, followed by
 apologies for the community's behavior for even more days. I am not doing
 that again.

--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10478#comment:19>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler