From m.farkasdyck at gmail.com Wed Aug 10 03:23:37 2016 From: m.farkasdyck at gmail.com (M Farkas-Dyck) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 19:23:37 -0800 Subject: Merging RFC pull requests Message-ID: Who has authority to do so? Shall we vote whether to merge each? From dluposchainsky at googlemail.com Wed Aug 10 17:33:41 2016 From: dluposchainsky at googlemail.com (David Luposchainsky) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:33:41 +0200 Subject: Merging RFC pull requests In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d697792-7943-ab88-07c1-b02a54217cac@gmail.com> On 10.08.2016 05:23, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: > Who has authority to do so? Shall we vote whether to merge each? The idea is that people talk about the proposals in the comments, and if we come to an agreement on a proposal, we merge the PR. This isn’t set in stone, but I felt like someone should get some form of process started, so I took a look at how Rust is doing it, and here we are. :-) David/quchen From fa-ml at ariis.it Wed Aug 10 21:55:50 2016 From: fa-ml at ariis.it (Francesco Ariis) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 23:55:50 +0200 Subject: Merging RFC pull requests In-Reply-To: <5d697792-7943-ab88-07c1-b02a54217cac@gmail.com> References: <5d697792-7943-ab88-07c1-b02a54217cac@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20160810215550.GA11762@casa.casa> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 07:33:41PM +0200, David Luposchainsky via Haskell-prime wrote: > The idea is that people talk about the proposals in the comments, and if we come > to an agreement on a proposal, we merge the PR. This isn’t set in stone, but I > felt like someone should get some form of process started, so I took a look at > how Rust is doing it, and here we are. :-) I suppose the repository link is https://github.com/haskell/rfcs ! Since the only mention on this list is from a mail by Herbert Valerio Riedel (31 May 2016), you might want to make it 'official' by announcing it here/on haskell at h.o From m.farkasdyck at gmail.com Mon Aug 15 08:01:00 2016 From: m.farkasdyck at gmail.com (M Farkas-Dyck) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 00:01:00 -0800 Subject: Haskell Prime vs core libraries Message-ID: For a proposal which affects the base library, such as AMP [1] for example, must we also consult the Core Libraries Committee? (I assume they already approved the AMP but i'm asking more generally.) [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1 From m.farkasdyck at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 01:57:04 2016 From: m.farkasdyck at gmail.com (M Farkas-Dyck) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:57:04 -0800 Subject: Codifying language extensions in Report Message-ID: Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow the extension, but using it remains optional. From rae at cs.brynmawr.edu Sat Aug 20 02:38:46 2016 From: rae at cs.brynmawr.edu (Richard Eisenberg) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 22:38:46 -0400 Subject: Codifying language extensions in Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I personally think this should be in scope. And indeed the Haskell 2010 Report does codify several extensions in Section 12.3. Richard > On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:57 PM, M Farkas-Dyck wrote: > > Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow > the extension, but using it remains optional. > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime From carter.schonwald at gmail.com Sat Aug 20 03:33:16 2016 From: carter.schonwald at gmail.com (Carter Schonwald) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 23:33:16 -0400 Subject: Codifying language extensions in Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Or more strongly : language extensions explicitly articulating which fancy features are enabled in a given module makes code more reason-able! And has made evolving code styles much easier to learn I still remember when having a toplevel -fglasgow-extensions was a thing, and I personally only started to understand various fancy techniques after the tools / features used In a given module had to be explicitly enumerated. Phrased differently: i agree with Richard -Carter On Friday, August 19, 2016, Richard Eisenberg wrote: > I personally think this should be in scope. And indeed the Haskell 2010 > Report does codify several extensions in Section 12.3. > > Richard > > > On Aug 19, 2016, at 9:57 PM, M Farkas-Dyck > wrote: > > > > Is this in scope? I.e. a conformant Haskell implementation must allow > > the extension, but using it remains optional. > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-prime mailing list > > Haskell-prime at haskell.org > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-prime mailing list > Haskell-prime at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: