On 18/12/2018 12:23, Henrik Nilsson wrote:
Hi all,
Well, I am in favour of discussing AMP and MRP separately
Whoops, my bad, wasn't familiar enough to realise my suggestion was
effectively covered by MRP!
I think it might be a legitimate thing to tease do-uses-*> apart from
MRP-as-a-whole as it only affects do notation and is already justifiable
in terms of AMP's rationale alone, but I'll entirely understand if it's
a bigger can of worms than is worth it at this point.
That said, if there's any appetite for it we could ask for the relevant
toggles to be added to GHC and gather some data, possibly branching this
off as an AMP-or-MRP thing? As I've said, I have a use case for it today
and in the absence of other extensions or alterations. It's a lot easier
to estimate ecosystem impact given a switch that'll find all the
resulting errors and give everyone a chance to fail any tests.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
