kesh VS ghc-proposals

I have something similar in kesh, where : is the assignment operator and the type/signature may be "assigned" before the value:

I'm not OP, in case you thought that :) kesh lives here. I tried incorporating some of the ideas discussed here, but posponed it to a later language, which I'm still thinking about.

This is a great idea that I've adopted for my PL. I took it a step further and also allow extensions of the core language to be specified, including profiles.

My (non-existing) language kesh, designed to compile to TypeScript, has expression blocks. That was one of my first decisions.

Still no work on a compiler, but more work on the documentation of kesh.

I'm working on kesh, but it's only at the design stage. I have tried to make it simple yet powerful, so I thought I'd mention it even though you can't use it.

I tried to distill down the most essential features of TS/JS (functional, prototypal) and then come up with new syntax and semantics that was minimal, orthogonal and hopefully easy to learn and use. The result is kesh and na.

I like the way you think. I had the same goal with kesh. A minimal syntax is easier on the eye and lets you focus on the actual code.

I'm only at the drawing board stage of kesh, a simple little PL that one day might possibly transpile to TypeScript. Not a single line of compiler code has been written so far, it's still all about syntax design and exploring ideas. kesh is mostly a pastime activity and something I can ponder over when I'm bored or can't sleep (which may be the reason I can't sleep).

> 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.