LAST CALL to comment on the Appicative/Monad Proposal

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Oliver Charles-3
Is there information anywhere on the process for acceptance/rejection criteria. It sounds like hvr can outright reject any proposal - are there others with that power? What is generally required for acceptance? Not meant critically, just interested

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, 8:01 pm Mario Blažević <[hidden email] wrote:
A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the
Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on
the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and
MonadOfNoReturn proposals.

This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a glimmer
of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the
RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the
commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only problem.

In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that
happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not
be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds
that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been vocal
about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us Haskell '98.

A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion, so
I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is resolved.
I still think the best course of action may be to disband the current
disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed [2] before
establishing the new process.

[1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690
[2]
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Philippa Cowderoy
In reply to this post by Mario Blažević
I'm not committee, so I don't need to be part of any consensus. Myself I
wouldn't bundle something I want up with something that's needed just to
get it to pass anyway, for what it's worth. I'd rather keep my own ideas
modular enough they don't bog anything down! So if I try to push my pet
feature further it'll be its own proposal and I for one can't tie it to
anything.

But I certainly understand where you're coming from on this. I'm sorry
if I've made things harder for you here, and I have to admit I had
preferred that MFP and MNR wait their turn. I'm hoping that one way or
another, Herbert's proposal means we reach some kind of conclusion in
the long run - at the least, we will have two mutually-exclusive
proposals on the table and an obligation to pick one, refine quickly or
go home.

I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to
get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed off
the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort involved.

On 16/01/2019 20:00, Mario Blažević wrote:

> A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the
> Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on
> the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and
> MonadOfNoReturn proposals.
>
> This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a
> glimmer of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the
> RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the
> commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only
> problem.
>
> In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
> combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that
> happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not
> be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds
> that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been
> vocal about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us
> Haskell '98.
>
> A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion,
> so I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is
> resolved. I still think the best course of action may be to disband
> the current disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed
> [2] before establishing the new process.
>
> [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690
> [2]
> https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Mario Blažević
In reply to this post by Oliver Charles-3
On 2019-01-16 3:10 p.m., Oliver Charles wrote:
> Is there information anywhere on the process for acceptance/rejection
> criteria. It sounds like hvr can outright reject any proposal - are
> there others with that power? What is generally required for acceptance?
> Not meant critically, just interested

        Every active member of the commitee has that power. We could
contemplate a different approach, like voting, if all members of the
commitee were active. When you have only a couple of responses to a
proposal, consensus among those who respond is the only possible way to go.


>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019, 8:01 pm Mario Blažević <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     A month passed since the last call, and I'm sorry to say that the
>     Applicative/Monad proposal has been rejected. Herbert has vetoed it on
>     the grounds that it doesn't come packaged with MonadFail and
>     MonadOfNoReturn proposals.
>
>     This is very unfortunate because (I thought) there was finally a
>     glimmer
>     of hope for Haskell 2020. The new process used to complete the
>     RelaxedPolyRec proposal seemed promising, as it worked around the
>     commitee's letargy problem. As it turns out, that wasn't the only
>     problem.
>
>     In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
>     combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it. I do hope that
>     happens, but when and if he submits the combined proposal, I would not
>     be surprised if, for example, Philippa should veto it on the grounds
>     that it doesn't include the ApplicativeDo proposal that she's been
>     vocal
>     about. This committee is a far cry from the one that gave us Haskell
>     '98.
>
>     A Haskell 2020 report with no AMP would be pointless, in my opinion, so
>     I'm going to suspend my work on the report until this issue is
>     resolved.
>     I still think the best course of action may be to disband the current
>     disfunctional committee and form a new one, as I proposed [2] before
>     establishing the new process.
>
>     [1] https://github.com/haskell/rfcs/pull/1#issuecomment-448126690
>     [2]
>     https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-prime/2018-October/004370.html
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Haskell-prime mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>


--
Mario Blazevic
[hidden email]
Stilo International

This message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or
distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient(s) please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message and any attachments.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Mario Blažević
In reply to this post by Philippa Cowderoy
On 2019-01-16 3:26 p.m., Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
> ...
> I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to
> get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed off
> the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort involved.

        Apologies, for some reason I thought you were on the committee. Your
self-description sounds like you'd fit right in.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Philippa Cowderoy
On 17/01/2019 16:46, Mario Blažević wrote:

> On 2019-01-16 3:26 p.m., Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>> ...
>> I'd like to thank you for your work - myself I'm infamously unable to
>> get things done (to the point of unemployability), and I've stayed
>> off the committee precisely because I can appreciate the effort
>> involved.
>
>     Apologies, for some reason I thought you were on the committee.
> Your self-description sounds like you'd fit right in.
>
I couldn't possibly comment! I'll admit it's left me with an eye for
small-but-significant changes though. A lot of my wider involvement with
the community has been of a more "social" nature, including my stint as
Anglohaskell's meta-organiser and sometimes organiser, though I also
mentored the Summer of Code project that got Parsec 3 off the ground
once upon a time too.

Thinking about it, that one does suggest I may have a talent for causing
inevitable yet untold chaos! Perhaps that made it inevitable that
someone would invite me onto this list in the dim and distant past?

--
Philippa

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Bardur Arantsson-2
In reply to this post by Mario Blažević
On 16/01/2019 21.00, Mario Blažević wrote:
>
> In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
> combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it.

Did anything come of this?

Regards,

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Cale Gibbard
Somehow every time I see messages from this list I'm again tempted to suggest that it would all be so much easier if the goal were to document the language as it exists in a fixed, already-released version of GHC. But I'm not a member either. If I were, I'd pick a version and veto anything which wasn't in that GHC. You could even pick a really old version of GHC for this purpose and come out with a document that's far more relevant to Haskell users of today than the Haskell 2010 Report. Just getting the Report up to the point where it actually describes most of the stuff in GHC 6 would be fantastic progress, tbh.

Also I'd strongly consider just dropping the specification of the Prelude altogether. I'm not sure it's even all that helpful to include it at this point, given that whatever version someone is using is always going to have Haddock documentation. It's both a point of contention, and of limited usefulness to document. 

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 12:02 Bardur Arantsson, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 16/01/2019 21.00, Mario Blažević wrote:
>
> In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
> combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it.

Did anything come of this?

Regards,

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: LAST CALL to comment on the Applicative/Monad Proposal

Herbert Valerio Riedel-3
In reply to this post by Bardur Arantsson-2
On 2019-03-31 at 18:02:13 +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>> In all fairness, Herbert did state [1] he intends to write up the
>> combination of AMP, MFP, and MNRP the way he likes it.
>
> Did anything come of this?

Actually yes! I started prototyping how the library-report modules could
like like in H2020 as an actual working prototype (needs at least GHC
8.6, as only GHC 8.6 has the MonadFail desugaring properly setup to make
this work seamlessly w/o the need for consumers to enable {-# LANGUAGE
RebindableSyntax #-}):

 http://hackage.haskell.org/package/haskell2020

as this is the easiest way to empirically evaluate whether the
big picture makes any sense;

This is a real package with proper versioning that can be depended upon
by other packages on Hackage; breaking changes will be signalled via
major version bumps). This package can be used just like the old
`haskell2010` was used, i.e. in your `.cabal` file you simply state

  build-depends: haskell2020 == 0.1.*

and do *not* declare a dependency on the `base` package.

Unfortunately I got distracted and haven't yet finished the delta to the
library report for AMP+MRP. I hope to get back to it soon to tie this
up.

Best,
Herbert
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
12