# Moving ArgumentsDo forward

12 messages
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Moving ArgumentsDo forward

 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. Regards, Takano Akio [0]: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10843[1]: https://phabricator.haskell.org/D1219[2]: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10843#comment:12_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

 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? 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. 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]. 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 [hidden email] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

 This gets a guilty +1 from me, I have always found $busy and cumbersome to read. Patterns such as ‘f a b c$ do’ are ubiquitous (especially in ESDLs where clean syntax matters more) and code such as > dataFetch req = Fetch $\ref -> do awkwardly requires 3 steps ($, lambda, do). 2016-06-01 16:32 GMT, Edward Kmett <[hidden email]>: > Just as a note: I noticed this was being discussed a couple of weeks ago as > a possible topic for haskell-prime, when they were discussing what was in > scope for the committee, so I'm not entirely sure its a dead topic. > > -Edward > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Bardur Arantsson <[hidden email]> > 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? 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. >> >> 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]. >> >> 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 >> [hidden email] >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>> > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [hidden email] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

Open this post in threaded view
|

## RE: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

Open this post in threaded view
|

## Re: Moving ArgumentsDo forward

Open this post in threaded view
|