…again? And no mention of what exactly is going to replace it? Hrm:
…all those “loopholes” are still there (and more have appeared since then) - can you provide an alternative to Safe Haskell in that proposal (or in a different one)? Writing all of this:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/628
would have taken quite some time, so I find it very difficult to believe that there was only ever one thought about Safe Haskell in all that time: “just un-do it”…