I think delaying is OK, but we should probably say something like "we're delaying for X and Y, but that doesn't mean that you can not sneak in Z*".
* Unless Z is the StrictData language pragma and your name is Johan. ;) On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Friends > > In a call with a bunch of type hackers, we were discussing > > https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9858 > > This is a pretty serious bug. It allows a malicious person to construct > his own unsafeCoerce, and so completely subverts Safe Haskell. > > Actually there are two bugs (see comment:19). The first is easily fixed. > But the second is not. > > We explored various quick fixes, but the real solution is not far out of > reach. It amounts to this: > > · Every data type is automatically in Typeable. No need to say > “deriving(Typeable)” or “AutoDeriveTypeable” (which would become deprecated) > > · In implementation terms, the constraint solver treats Typeable > specially, much as it already treats Coercible specially. > > It’s not a huge job. It’d probably take a couple of days of > implementation work, and some time for shaking out bugs and consequential > changes. The biggest thing might be simply working out implementation > design choices. (For example, there is a modest code-size cost to making > everything Typeable, esp because that includes the data constructors of the > type (which can be used in types, with DataKinds). Does that matter? > Should we provide a way to suppress it? If so, we’d also need a way to > express whether or not the Typable instance exists in the interface file.) > > But it is a substantial change that will touch a lot of lines of code. > Moreover, someone has to do it, and Iavor (who heroically volunteered) > happens to be travelling next week. > > So it’s really not the kind of thing we would usually do after RC2. > > But (a) it’s serious and, as it happens, (b) there is also the BBP Prelude > debate going on. > > Hence the question: should we simply delay 7.10 by, say, a month? After > all, the timetable is up to us. Doing so might give a bit more breathing > space to the BBP debate, which might allow time for reflection and/or > implementation of modest features to help the transition. (I know that > several are under discussion.) Plus, anyone waiting for 7.10 can simply > use RC2, which is pretty good. > > Would that be a relief to the BBP debate? Or any other opinions. > > Simon > > PS: I know, I know: there is endless pressure to delay releases to get > stuff in. If we give in to that pressure, we never make a release. But we > should know when to break our own rules. Perhaps this is such an occasion. > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
