I forgot to link a bit of relevant discussion from https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/406, is there a (silent) consensus on the issue?
- Oleg On 17.3.2021 19.15, Oleg Grenrus wrote: > I have a following question: > My lexer rules related proposal was recently accepted. The biggest part > of getting it in is writing documentation for it. While looking at > Divergence from Haskell 98 and Haskell 2010 section of the user manual, > in particular Lexical syntax, it already has See "GHC Proposal #229 for > the precise rules.". > > Can I just the same? (I think there was an implicit acceptance of that > practice in e.g. > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/1664#note_238759) > > However, I think that referring to proposals text for "essential" bits > of information is a bad practice. > Because GHC proposals are sometimes amended, one have to look into > GitHub history to find out what were there for a particular time point > of a GHC release. Very laborous. > > --- > > Currently there is 23 references to about a dozen of proposals. An > example are passages like > > In 9.0, the behavior of this extension changed, and now we require > that a negative literal must not be preceded by a closing token (see > `GHC Proposal #229 > <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0229-whitespace-bang-patterns.rst>`__ > for the definition of a closing token). > > or > > a future release will be > turned off by default and then possibly removed. The reasons for > this and > the deprecation schedule are described in `GHC proposal #30 > > <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0030-remove-star-kind.rst>`__. > > And there are better examples, which are references for more information, > not essential one, like > > See the proposal `DuplicateRecordFields without ambiguous field access > > <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0366-no-ambiguous-field-access.rst>`_ > and the documentation on :extension:`DuplicateRecordFields` for > further details. > > (I'd put the internal user manual link first), or > > But these automatic eta-expansions may silently change the semantics > of the user's program, > and deep skolemisation was removed from the language by > `GHC Proposal #287 > <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0287-simplify-subsumption.rst>`__. > This proposal has many more examples. > > --- > > So to boil down my question, can I write > > Lexical syntax of identifiers and decimal numbers differs slightly > from the Haskell report. > See GHC Proposal #403 for the precise rules and differences. > > - Oleg > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
