From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Nov 1 15:59:43 2016 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 11:59:43 -0400 Subject: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs Message-ID: <1478015983.11001.4.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, looking at Haskell prime’s trac, I noticed that there is no formal proposal to include InstaceSigs¹ in the next language revision. As a teacher who uses live coding in a text editor, I usually write out all type signatures. Not being able to do that for instance methods is a minor annoyance. So I guess by sending this mail I started the proposal process properly? Greetings, Joachim ¹ https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/glasgow_exts.html#ghc-flag--XInstanceSigs -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner   mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dluposchainsky at googlemail.com Tue Nov 1 18:43:26 2016 From: dluposchainsky at googlemail.com (David Luposchainsky) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:43:26 +0100 Subject: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs In-Reply-To: <1478015983.11001.4.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <1478015983.11001.4.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <03e12115-ed00-73be-c11b-24471b78d167@gmail.com> On 01.11.2016 16:59, Joachim Breitner wrote: > As a teacher who uses live coding in a text editor, I usually write out > all type signatures. Not being able to do that for instance methods is > a minor annoyance. > > So I guess by sending this mail I started the proposal process > properly? Hi Joachim, great to see you tune in! We’re currently trying out a Github-based process. If you want, you could write up a proposal here [1], or at least make a reminder post-it-ticket here [2] so maybe someone else does. :-) Greetings, David [1]: https://github.com/haskell/rfcs [2]: https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/projects/1 -- My GPG keys: https://keybase.io/quchen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mail at joachim-breitner.de Tue Nov 1 21:55:47 2016 From: mail at joachim-breitner.de (Joachim Breitner) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:55:47 -0400 Subject: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs In-Reply-To: <03e12115-ed00-73be-c11b-24471b78d167@gmail.com> References: <1478015983.11001.4.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <03e12115-ed00-73be-c11b-24471b78d167@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1478037347.21588.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Hi, Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2016, 19:43 +0100 schrieb David Luposchainsky: > On 01.11.2016 16:59, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > As a teacher who uses live coding in a text editor, I usually write out > > all type signatures. Not being able to do that for instance methods is > > a minor annoyance. > > > > So I guess by sending this mail I started the proposal process > > properly? > > Hi Joachim, > > great to see you tune in! We’re currently trying out a Github-based process. If > you want, you could write up a proposal here [1], or at least make a reminder > post-it-ticket here [2] so maybe someone else does. :-) done: https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/13 I did not copy the detailed description from the GHC manual to the proposal yet. Is it ok to defer that until the proposal has been approved, or at least until approval is known to be likely? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner   mail at joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/   XMPP: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F   Debian Developer: nomeata at debian.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mblazevic at stilo.com Wed Nov 2 16:34:34 2016 From: mblazevic at stilo.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Bla=c5=beevi=c4=87?=) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:34:34 -0400 Subject: Proposal: Include InstanceSigs In-Reply-To: <1478037347.21588.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> References: <1478015983.11001.4.camel@joachim-breitner.de> <03e12115-ed00-73be-c11b-24471b78d167@gmail.com> <1478037347.21588.1.camel@joachim-breitner.de> Message-ID: <2f0b0557-cd27-fc3c-cb25-75994983a772@stilo.com> On 2016-11-01 05:55 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > done: > > https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/13 > > I did not copy the detailed description from the GHC manual to the > proposal yet. Is it ok to defer that until the proposal has been > approved, or at least until approval is known to be likely? > I see no point in copying the detailed description verbatim. You can just link to it, unless you intend to change something therein. From saurabhnanda at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 10:16:04 2016 From: saurabhnanda at gmail.com (Saurabh Nanda) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:46:04 +0530 Subject: Named arguments to functions? Message-ID: Hi Everyone, I was going through https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/Process#Proposals and noticed the following: > Ideally the language change should be implemented already, so that experience gained with the implementation can inform the discussion Is this a hard requirement? I would like to see the ability to pass named arguments to functions somehow (most probably through anonymous records). I'm unaware of any existing language extension that solves this problem. Does this render the discussion out-of-bounds from a Haskell Prime perspective? Has this already been proposed and considered? Also, going by what is given on the Wiki, I'm confused about where to check the current status of proposals that are being considered. Which is the primary link: * https://prime.haskell.org/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&group=state * Or, https://github.com/haskell/rfcs -- Saurabh. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iavor.diatchki at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 21:59:44 2016 From: iavor.diatchki at gmail.com (Iavor Diatchki) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:59:44 -0800 Subject: Named arguments to functions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, I would say that this is a too complex of a change to discuss for Haskell Prime without implementation or prior experience. If you are interested in something like this, you may want to start a discussion of the design on one of the other lists, or perhaps write up a proposal for GHC. The proposals currently under discussion are on the `github` URL. Cheers, -Iavor On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Saurabh Nanda wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I was going through https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/Process#Proposals and > noticed the following: > > > Ideally the language change should be implemented already, so that > experience gained with the implementation can inform the discussion > > Is this a hard requirement? I would like to see the ability to pass named > arguments to functions somehow (most probably through anonymous records). > I'm unaware of any existing language extension that solves this problem. > Does this render the discussion out-of-bounds from a Haskell Prime > perspective? Has this already been proposed and considered? > > Also, going by what is given on the Wiki, I'm confused about where to > check the current status of proposals that are being considered. Which is > the primary link: > > * https://prime.haskell.org/query?status=new&status= > assigned&status=reopened&group=state > * Or, https://github.com/haskell/rfcs > > -- Saurabh. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From saurabhnanda at gmail.com Sun Nov 13 13:38:45 2016 From: saurabhnanda at gmail.com (Saurabh Nanda) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:08:45 +0530 Subject: Named arguments to functions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for your reply. If you are interested in something like this, you may want to start a > discussion of the design on one of the other lists, or perhaps write up a > proposal for GHC. > While I would like the general area of records getting better in Haskell, I don't think I have the necessary technical chops to lead a GHC proposal around this. Do you know any proposal/extension in GHC that is already trying to solve: (a) records, and/or (b) named arguments? > The proposals currently under discussion are on the `github` URL. > Possible to update the prime.haskell.org website to reflect the current state of affairs? -- Saurabh. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: