search

purescript / purescript-st

The ST effect, for safe local mutation
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
25 stars 25 forks source link

Implement `ST h a` as a newtype #15

Closed joneshf closed 6 years ago

joneshf commented 6 years ago

Per discussion on https://github.com/purescript/purescript/issues/3116.

Is this what we're looking for?

paf31 commented 6 years ago

Looks good, thanks! Obviously this will need some changes once Eff rows are removed.

joneshf commented 6 years ago

Anything else we need before merging?

paf31 commented 6 years ago

I don't think so, but I'd like to bundle this with the 0.12 library changes.

joneshf commented 6 years ago

This might not be the right place to discuss it, but is there a way we could augment the development process that would allow PRs like this–that are to be part of a new version and not the current version–to be merged? It's not something specific to this PR, but a thing that has happened a few times in various repos. I also don't want to complain too loudly, because it's not that big of a deal.

I understand there's a process you'd like to go through to ensure the new version goes through smoothly. And I don't want to add unnecessary burden, but I think as a community we lose momentum when PRs are put on hold. It's also a bit more of a burden on contributors in case conflicts arise.

I have no real preference for what this new process should be. The naive approach would be to have a separate branch, but I don't know how much extra work that adds to maintaining the repos. Maybe for some of the more active repos a full workflow like git flow makes sense?

matthewleon commented 6 years ago

Perhaps it makes sense to roll the kind for regions into this PR? https://github.com/purescript/purescript-st/issues/12

matthewleon commented 6 years ago

Probably also worth mentioning on this that it addresses https://github.com/purescript/purescript-st/issues/4

joneshf commented 6 years ago

Perhaps it makes sense to roll the kind for regions into this PR? #12

I'd really prefer we did that in a separate PR. This PR is for sure a breaking change, but it needn't be the only PR that breaks things.

joneshf commented 6 years ago

I think this is superseded by some other changes/library. Either way, there's no activity here. Feel free to re-open and merge if you'd like.