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
Hello all,
I agree with Henrik, I'm very keen on giving the new Haskell committee a
shot.
While some may not think that Haskell2010 was a success, I think it would
be difficult to argue that Haskell98 was anything but a resounding success
(even if you don't think the language was what it could ha
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, [...]
>
> Aprop
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 if
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
>> experience
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):
>
>
> --8<---
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 if
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 Mo
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 older
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
>> categorical
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 t
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 libraries, it has been pointed out, I believe, that without
> >>
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: haskell-prime@haskell.or
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 fix:
>>
>> ~/personal/src/
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
He
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 `#[allow(...)]` pragma which can b
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 writes:
>
> > 2015-10-05 17:09 GMT+02:00 Gersho
(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:
> 329
>
>
> Alt
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 also
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`, breaking almost *every* sing
20 matches
Mail list logo