haddock VS ghc-proposals

Happily, at Well-Typed we've got a client funding improvements to Haddock performance, so this should get better in the future. The work isn't yet finished but there are some good improvements already: https://github.com/haskell/haddock/pull/1594

/* ==UserStyle== @name Hackage Synopsis Search Hider @namespace github.com/openstyles/stylus @version 1 @description A userstyle that applies the fix in https://github.com/haskell/haddock/pull/1486/files to hackage.haskell.org @author https://github.com/mrbech/ ==/UserStyle== */ @-moz-document domain("hackage.haskell.org") { #synopsis details:not([open]) > ul { visibility: hidden; } }

This proposal is based on an idea by Haddock maintainers.

The commit in question was made two and a half years ago (25 Feb 2019) so I hope it's on Hackage by now.

I've opened a feature request to add a visible search bar exposing the quick jump functionality in haddock.

> I think Haskell needs a way to graduate (or retire) language extensions

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601

Additionally, while this proposal is focused on the simple implementation and so in the current proposal or patterns do not bind any variables as per #522, if we do get settled on syntax and then later wish to expand to allow binding variables as in #43, then the syntax is again clean and discoverable.

Yeah, a relatively natural thing would be to be able to opt-in to having the HasField instances be available in all contexts. The (not yet implemented, but accepted) "Modifiers" GHC proposal might be nice for that.

The local modules proposal imo is excellent as-is.

Why would you drop TypeFamilies? It seems fairly popular, given that it was just one vote short of getting added to GHC2021. Do you consider it a less-ideal compromise, that is subsumed by your second proposal (Core with GRTT)?

as syntax is contentious a topic as ever, David (the main proposal author) and I would like to invite you to give your input on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/585, where we propose to change the syntax of the accepted proposal #522 introducing Or patterns. In particular, we'd like to know

This looks great, congratulations on completing it! I assume you didn’t get an opportunity to evaluate the delimited continuations based eff library? It would’ve been nice to see Cont included as one of the effects covered, though perhaps not available in all the systems you looked at? Maybe some future work.

I do hope qualified exports are available someday: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/283

Right. Being able to disable "custom type warnings" at use sites was part of an earlier proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/454) but it ended up being shelved.