Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

On 10/06/2015 10:12 AM, Johan Tibell wrote: > (Resending with smaller recipient list to avoid getting stuck in the > moderator queue.) > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > >> PS: I'm a bit disappointed you seem to dismiss this proposal right away >>

Re: [Haskell-cafe] MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

On 6 Oct 2015, at 17:47, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > >> The problem by discussions is that they are done between two groups with >> quite a difference in experience. On one hand you have people like Bryan, >> who have considerable contributions to the Haskell ecosystem and much >>

Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

I hit "send" too early, so here's the incomplete section completed: On 2015-10-06 at 18:47:08 +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: [...] > In the specific case of MRP, I can offer you a Wall-perfect transition > scheme by either using `ghc-options: -fno-mrp-warnings` in your > cabal-file, or

Re: Language Change Management

On 10/06/2015 09:18 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > On 10/06/2015 02:49 AM, wren romano wrote: [--snip--] > > No amount of planning can get around the fact that some people simply > *don't want any change*. > Forgot a little side note: Bundling more changes may seem like a good idea, but that

Re: Language Change Management

On 10/06/2015 02:49 AM, wren romano wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Adam Foltzer wrote: >>> Also I'm not sure if there would be less complaints if >>> AMP/FTP/MFP/MRP/etc as part of a new Haskell Report would be switched on all >>> at once in e.g. `base-5.0`,

Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

Hi, On 2015-10-06 at 21:32:19 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > On 6 October 2015 at 19:03, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: >>> In the specific case of MRP, I can offer you a Wall-perfect transition >>> scheme by either using `ghc-options: -fno-mrp-warnings` in your >>> cabal-file,

Re: Reducing the need for CPP (was: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

It might be enough to just add a NOWARN pragma that acts on a single line/expression. I've seen it in both C++ and Python linters and it works reasonably well and it's quite general. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Ben Gamari wrote: > Sven Panne

Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

(Resending with smaller recipient list to avoid getting stuck in the moderator queue.) On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: > On 2015-10-05 at 21:01:16 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote: > > On the libraries I maintain and have a copy of on my computer right now:

Re: [Haskell-cafe] MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

Dear all, I think this discussion has gotten quite heated for reasons not related to the concrete MRP proposal, which, to be honest, I considered quite modest in terms of both scope and impact. Instead, I think it is a proxy for lots of remaining frustration and anxiety over the poor handling

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Reducing the need for CPP

Ben Gamari writes: > This is a fair point that comes up fairly often. The fact that CPP is > required to silence redundant import warnings is quite unfortunate. > Others languages have better stories in this area. One example is Rust, > which has a quite flexible

RE: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

To question 1 my answer is NO! I think voting to decide these kind of issues a terrible idea; we might as well throw dice. -Original Message- From: Haskell-Cafe [mailto:haskell-cafe-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Henrik Nilsson Sent: 06 October 2015 12:33 To:

Re: Reducing the need for CPP (was: Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Ben Gamari wrote: > Sven Panne writes: > > > 2015-10-05 17:09 GMT+02:00 Gershom B : > > > >> On October 5, 2015 at 10:59:35 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan (b...@serpentine.com > ) > >> wrote: > >> [...] As for

MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP (was: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`)

On 2015-10-05 at 21:01:16 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Gregory Collins [...] >> Strongly -1 from me also. My experience over the last couple of years is >> that every GHC release breaks my libraries in annoying ways that require >> CPP to

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

On 2015-10-06 at 14:06:11 +0200, Erik Hesselink wrote: > I was always under the impression that +1/-1 was just a quick > indicator of opinion, not a vote, and that it was the core libraries > committee that would make the final call if enough consensus was > reached to enact the change. I'd like

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Monad of no `return` Proposal (MRP): Moving `return` out of `Monad`

Dear all, Executive Summary: Please let us defer further discussion and ultimate decision on MRP to the resurrected HaskellPrime committee While we can discuss the extent of additional breakage MRP would cause, the fact remains it is a further breaking change. A survey of breakage to books as

Re: Reducing the need for CPP

On 10/06/2015 11:11 AM, Johan Tibell wrote: > It might be enough to just add a NOWARN pragma that acts on > a single line/expression. I've seen it in both C++ and Python linters and > it works reasonably well and it's quite general. +1. Simple is good and can hopefully also be backported to

Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

On 2015-10-06 at 10:10:01 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote: [...] >> You say that you stick to the 3-major-ghc-release support-window >> convention for your libraries. This is good, because then you don't need >> any CPP at all! Here's why: >> >> [...] >> > > So what do I have to write today to have my

Re: [Haskell-cafe] MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

2015-10-06 18:47 GMT+02:00 Herbert Valerio Riedel : > [...] That being said, as how to write your Monad instances today with GHC > 7.10 w/o CPP, while supporting at least GHC 7.4/7.6/7.8/7.10: This > *does* work (admittedly for an easy example, but this can be > generalised): > > >

Re: MRP, 3-year-support-window, and the non-requirement of CPP

I hit "send" too early, so here's the incomplete section completed: On 2015-10-06 at 18:47:08 +0200, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote: [...] > In the specific case of MRP, I can offer you a Wall-perfect transition > scheme by either using `ghc-options: -fno-mrp-warnings` in your > cabal-file, or