Re: Rethinking GHC's approach to managing proposals

Hello, I think this sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how well it will work in practice until we try it. Some clarifying questions on the intended process: 1. After submitting the initial merge request, is the person making the proposal to wait for any kind of acknowledgment,

RE: Rethinking GHC's approach to managing proposals

Just to be clear: * We are actively seeking feedback about the proposal [4] below. It's not a fait-accompli. * You can join the dialogue by (a) replying to this email, (b) via the "Conversations" tab of [4], namely https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/1 Doubtless via

Re: Rethinking GHC's approach to managing proposals

Apostolos Syropoulos via Glasgow-haskell-users writes: > >Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion[1,2] around the >>mechanisms by which proposed changes to GHC are evaluated. While we have >>something of a formal proposal protocol [3], it is not

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi Sven, a wrongly spelled keyword will soon be detected by the checker in either cases. Readability is the responsibility of programmers. It is up to you or a team to use parentheses for the examples below. (I find a line break and indentation to be sufficient.) (I know people - mostly

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

Hi, Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 08:31 +0200 schrieb Sven Panne: > Because at first glance, this is visually only a tiny fraction away > from >   >    (if c then f else g)  it d them a elsa b > > which would be parsed in a totally different way. (Personally, I > think that if/then/else is useless

Re: Proposal: ArgumentDo

2016-07-10 11:28 GMT+02:00 C Maeder : > [...] Why does an explicit infix operator make such a big difference for > you? > > (if c then f else g) $ if d then a else b > > (if c then f else g) if d then a else b > [...] > Because at first glance, this is visually only a