Hi Andrew, On 6 June 2016 at 16:37, Andrew Gibiansky <[email protected]> wrote: > As the author of the proposal and extension, I'd like to clarify that the > change was abandoned per se because of how controversial the change was. [0] > [1] [2]
Thank you for the clarification. I hope you don't mind that I pick up your proposal and use your code as a starting point. > > This is not to say that we should not continue to discuss this change, but > if we do so, make sure that you first read through the previous discussion > -- it was quite extensive! > > Specifically, I became unconvinced that it was worth the effort to make as > an extension, given the reasons against it (mainly, extra work for GHC, > hindent, haskell-src-exts, etc etc); I think this along with a few other > things (trailing commas!) could make a significant improvement to cosmetic > Haskell syntax, but perhaps one extension per character is a bit much for > that. That said I have no idea how else a mythical Haskell' could get a > cleaned up syntax if not through first being implemented as a GHC extension. I actually found the response from people at haskell-cafe rather encouraging. To me a 50% support seems high enough to justify an implementation. > > Finally, you may be interested in ghc-reskin [3], which was a (slightly > tongue-in-cheek) response to a lot of the discussion caused by this > extension last time, and could potentially be made into a production-ready > tool / Haskell' syntax if anyone cared strongly to do so. Thank you. Unfortunately for my uses a separate preprocessor probably would have too much overhead. > > [0] > https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/447bnw/does_argument_do_have_a_future/ > [1] > https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2015-September/121217.html > [2] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10843 > [3] https://github.com/gibiansky/ghc-reskin > > Best, > Andrew > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:26 PM Akio Takano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Bardur, >> >> On 2 June 2016 at 00:09, Bardur Arantsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 06/01/2016 01:48 PM, Akio Takano wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Ticket #10843 [0] proposes an extension, ArgumentsDo, which I would >> >> love to see in GHC. It's a small syntactic extension that allows do, >> >> case, if and lambda blocks as function arguments, without parentheses. >> >> However, its differential revision [1] has been abandoned, citing a >> >> mixed response from the community. A message [2] on the ticket >> >> summarizes a thread in haskell-cafe on this topic. >> >> >> >> I, for one, think adding this extension is worthwhile, because a >> >> significant number of people support it. Also, given how some people >> >> seem to feel ambivalent about this change, I believe actually allowing >> >> people to try it makes it clearer whether it is a good idea. >> >> >> >> Thus I'm wondering: is there any chance that this gets merged? If so, >> >> I'm willing to work on whatever is remaining to get the change merged. >> >> >> > >> > What's changed since it was last discussed? >> >> Nothing has really changed. I'm just trying to argue that the current >> level of community support is good enough to justify an >> implementation. >> >> Please note that the previous Differential revision was abandoned by >> the author. It was *not* rejected due to a lack of support. Hence my >> question: if properly implemented, does this feature have any chance >> of getting merged in, or is it regarded too controversial? >> >> > I don't think the objections >> > were centered in the implementation, so I don't see what "whatever is >> > remaining to get the change merged" would be. >> >> I'm referring the points mentioned in the review comments in the >> Differential revision. For example this change needs an update to the >> User's Guide. >> >> > >> > AFAICT at best it's a *very* small improvement[1] and fractures Haskell >> > syntax even more around extensions -- tooling etc. will need to >> > understand even *more* syntax extensions[2]. >> >> I disagree that this is a small improvement, but I don't intend to >> debate this here. As you said, nothing has really changed since it was >> discussed before, and a lot of reasons for implementing this extension >> have been already pointed out. I don't have anything to add. >> >> Regarding tooling, my understanding is that most tools that need to >> understand Haskell (this includes ghc-mod and hdevtools) use either >> the GHC API or haskell-src-exts, so I don't think this extension would >> need changes in many places. >> >> Regards, >> Takano Akio >> >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > [1] If you grant that it is indeed an improvment, which I, personally, >> > don't think it is. >> > >> > [2] I think most people agree that this is something that should perhaps >> > be handled by something like >> > https://github.com/haskell/haskell-ide-engine so that it would only need >> > to be implemented once, but there's not even an alpha release yet, so >> > that particular objection stands, AFAICT. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ghc-devs mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > -- > > – Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
