February 2018 - ghc-steering-committee

Proposal: Syntax for visible dependent quantification (#81)
by Roman Leshchinskiy 30 Sep '18

30 Sep '18

Hi everyone, The proposal is about adding support for dependent quantification to kind signatures: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/81 Consider the following declaration (example lifted from the proposal): data T k (a :: k) GHC accepts this but it can't be given an explicit kind. Internally, it is assigned a kind which is rendered as forall k -> k -> * but this isn't accepted in source code. Note that in applications of T, k must be specified explicitly (e.g., T Type Int) which is why T does *not* have the kind forall k. k -> * Moreover, k is mentioned later in the kind which is why something like Type -> k -> * doesn't work, either. The proposal is to allow forall k -> k -> * and similar kinds to appear in source code. This is actually intended as the first in a series of proposals driving us towards dependent types in Haskell as described in Richard's thesis (https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~sweirich/papers/eisenberg-thesis.pdf) Ultimately, the intention is to have all of the following (cf. Chapter 4 of the thesis): forall a. t forall a -> t pi a. t pi a -> t Here, forall and pi express relevance (does it exist at runtime) and . and -> express visibility (does it have to be specified explicitly). Because of this, my recommendation is to strongly encourage the author to submit an extended proposal which reserves (but doesn't specify the semantics of) the above syntax wholesale. This would allow us to ensure that various bits of Dependent Haskell use consistent syntax and language extensions once implemented. I find it quite difficult to discuss just this specific bit of syntax in isolation. Indeed, the public discussion was rather confused without an explanation of the roadmap (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/81#issuecomment-3368929…) Alternatively, we could just agree on the roadmap ourselves, without public discussion. This would somewhat circumvent the process, though. If we decide to discuss just the proposal as is, though, then I'd be weakly against the proposed syntax as it is too subtle for my taste and abuses familiar mathematical notation somewhat. I'd probably prefer something like: type a -> t The proposal also doesn't specify what language extension would turn on support for the syntax so this would have to be rectified. Thanks, Roman

4 9

Proposal: Or patterns (#43)
by Manuel M T Chakravarty 18 Jun '18

18 Jun '18

Folks, I am sorry for taking a long time to get us going on this proposal. The ”Or pattern” proposal is about an extension to pattern matching: (formatted) https://github.com/osa1/ghc-proposals/blob/or_patterns/proposals/0000-or-pa… (PR thread) https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Its basic idea is simple: allow multiple alternative patterns for each alternative during pattern matching. Unfortunately, the interaction with guards and some other languages features makes it significantly less straight forward than one might initially think. I propose to accept this proposal provided we can agree to use the ”first semantics” (aka single-match semantics) — see https://github.com/osa1/ghc-proposals/blob/or_patterns/proposals/0000-or-pa… My reason for insisting on the first semantics is that it is a simple extension of the existing pattern semantics in the Report, whereas the second semantics requires a more profound, non-local change. This, in particular, also makes it easier to understand the implications of the first semantics. (Also, OCaml has made that same choice.) However, even with the first semantics, I still have one concern about this proposal. The story about the interaction with existential types is currently only partial and there is no discussion of the interaction with GADTs. It might be reasonable to ask for a complete specification of the interaction with these features before making a final determination on this proposal. Nevertheless, this proposal is quite elaborate and quite some work has gone into it. Hence, I think, we owe it the authors of the proposal to at least make a preliminary determination at this point. (In particular, if it is not going to fly regardless of how GADTs are handled, we should say so now.) Cheers, Manuel PS: It is worth noting that Swift solved the problem of deciding between the first and second semantics by choosing a syntax that avoids the ambiguity: <https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/…>. It is difficult to adapt this syntax to Haskell. If it where possible, I think, this would be the best solution.

6 14

Please review: Mutable constructor fields, Shepherd: Ryan Newton
by Joachim Breitner 08 May '18

08 May '18

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 was brought before the committee, by our own Simon Marlow. I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, because he asked for it :-) Ryan, please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point out debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees with you. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

7 18

Committee Discussion : Lazy unboxed tuples
by Ryan Newton 05 May '18

05 May '18

Dear Committee, The public discussion <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35> for this one <https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/unbanged-strict-patterns/p…> has happened, now for 4 weeks of committee discussion and final accept/reject. In that public discussion, you can see on Jan 11 options broken down as (1),(2),(3), with this proposal being (1). This seems to have stopped in a weird place where there was some substantial argument for (2) and (3) in the latter half of the comments, but the proposal is for (1). Richard, one bit that threw me off was this: *"we should require the bang even on bare variables, but that would break a lot of code I think."* Because that makes it seem like in spite of this cleaning-up proposal, GHC still has a basically inconsistent position on how to interpret variable-bindings of unlifted kind in patterns. Discuss? -Ryan On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail(a)joachim-breitner.de > wrote: > Hi, > > it is by Richard, I just got the URL wrong. The right pull request is > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 > sorry for that. > > Using this thread is fine. > > Joachim > > Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2017, 10:58 -0400 schrieb Ryan Newton: > > Just to clarify, this is proposed by a user "winterland". I.e. not > > Richard, right? In the process document it is the author that "brings > > it before the committee" correct? > > > > I checked and it looks like our process document does not specify the > > means of our committee discussion. I propose we discuss this one > > right here on this thread, which we've already got sitting in our > > inboxes. > > > > Best, > > -Ryan > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breit > > ner.de> wrote: > > > Dear Committee, > > > > > > this is your secretary speaking: > > > > > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/45 > > > was brought before the committee, by our own Richard. > > > > > > I propose Ryan Newton as the Shepherd, just to rotate this role > > > properly. > > > > > > Ryan, please reach consensus as described in > > > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process > > > > > > I suggest you make a recommendation about the decision, maybe point > > > out > > > debatable points, and assume that anyone who stays quiet agrees > > > with > > > you. > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Joachim > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Joachim Breitner > > > mail(a)joachim-breitner.de > > > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > > > > > > > > -- > Joachim “nomeata” Breitner > mail(a)joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ > XMPP: nomeata(a)joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F > Debian Developer: nomeata(a)debian.org > _______________________________________________ > ghc-steering-committee mailing list > ghc-steering-committee(a)haskell.org > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee > >

5 6

Proposal: Embrace Type in Type
by Iavor Diatchki 25 Apr '18

25 Apr '18

Hello, I am the shepherd for pull request #83 "Embrace Type in Type" ( https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83) and so I'd like to hear your thoughts about the proposal. In short, the proposal has two parts: 1. Deprecate the use of `*` for the kind of inhabited Haskell types, and replace it with `Type`. 2. Deprecate extension `TypeInType`, and move its functionality to extension `PolyKinds`. At first I was quite skeptical about both of these, but after some thought I've realized that most of my concerns are not so much about Type in Type, but rather about the data promotion mechanism, and so I won't discuss them in this e-mail. As such, I think I would be OK with part 2. In particular, I like that when using TypeInType, one is explicit about kind parameters, as the implicit parameters of `PolyKinds` can be quite confusing. Technically, being explicit about kind parameters is an orthogonal issue to mixing up types and kinds, but this is where we are at the moment, and I think `PolyKinds` is probably more useful with `TypeInType`. Part 1 of the proposal is obviously just a syntactic thing, but I am a bit concerned about it. In part because I actually tried for a while to use `Type` instead of `*`, and I found that the resulting kind signatures looked much more complicated. Quite possibly this is because I am very used to using `*` and eventually I would adjust, but things just ended up being much longer. It also seems unfortunate that this would break quite a lot of code, and obsolete a bunch of documentation and tutorials online. So while I understand the reason for the proposal (the confusion between `*` the type function, and `*` the kind), I am not very keen on making this change. The proposal also suggests another extension, `StarIsType`, and when enabled `*` will always refer to the kind, and never to the type function. I am even less keen about this option, as I think it is better to pick a single notation and stick with it. I'd love to hear what others think! -Iavor

7 36

Constraint vs Type: I propose acceptance
by Simon Peyton Jones 24 Apr '18

24 Apr '18

Friends I propose that we support the GHC proposal "Declare Constraint is not apart from Type<https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/rae/constraint-vs-type/…>" Currently GHC operates an uneasy compromise: * Constraint and Type are treated as distinct in the type checker (e.g. do not unify) * But they are treated as the same in Core I have spent ages in discussion with Richard and others for how to fix this wart. Really, they should be either * completely different (like Int and Bool), or * completely the same (like [Char] and String). But both these stances have problems, and nothing satisfying has emerged. So this proposal simply fixes the worst aspect (unsoundness) of the current setup. So I regard it as a way to stay explicitly non-committal, leaving the main question open. There are a couple of clarifications I'd like which I've put on the discussion thread. Simon

3 4

DH quantifiers (#102), Recommendation: accept
by Joachim Breitner 16 Apr '18

16 Apr '18

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Dependent Haskell quantifiers were proposed, by Richard. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/102 rendered at https://github.com/goldfirere/ghc-proposals/blob/pi/proposals/0000-pi.rst I’ll shepherd that myself. This proposal defines and reserves the syntax for the quantifiers that eventually Dependent Haskell will need, and allows their use where it makes sense already (e.g. in Kinds). The quantifier are: forall a. forall a '. forall a -> forall a '-> foreach a. foreach a '. foreach a -> foreach a '-> ty => ty '=> ty -> ty '-> It addresses the interaction with warning (e.g. -Wcompat). It looks well-thought-through, one might infer that the authors wrote a thesis about this stuff. There is some syntactic bikeshedding possible; for example the proposal proposes "foreach" instead of "pi" (the latter would make "pi" a keyword, which would be unfortunate for those who deal with circles). If someone has better ideas, in particular about the use of ' to denote matchable arrows, we still have time to suggest them. I recommend to accept this proposal in the current form or with further refinements to the syntax, if we can come up with them. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

4 10

Plugin recompilation avoidance interface (#108)
by Ben Gamari 16 Apr '18

16 Apr '18

Hello everyone, I have been assigned as the shepard for proposal #108. This proposes a change in GHC's plugin interface allowing plugins greater control over recompilation, significantly improving compilation times for projects relying on compiler plugins. Summary: The proposal suggests that the existing fields of the `ghc` package's Plugin.Plugin type be wrapped with a type capturing a function computing the plugin's recompilation desired behavior, data PluginRecompile = ForceRecompile | NoForceRecompile | MaybeRecompile Fingerprint GHC can then use this recompilation information to decide whether evaluating the plugin (and consequently invalidating any existing compilation artifacts) is necessary. Opinion & recommendation: The proposal addresses a long-standing limitation (#7414) of the GHC plugin interface which has become increasingly visible to users in recent years. While the particular approach proposed breaks existing plugin users, it is expressive enough to allow GHC to perform more aggressive recompilation avoidance in the future [1]. Moreover, the smart constructors proposed should make for a reasonably smooth migration path. Given that the plugins appears to have buy-in from a few notable plugin authors, I recommend that we accept this proposal. Cheers, - Ben

5 12

As patterns in pattern synonyms (#94), Recommendation: accept
by Joachim Breitner 22 Mar '18

22 Mar '18

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: As patterns in pattern synonyms, by Richard. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/94 rendered at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/as-pattern-synonyms/AsP… I’ll shepherd that myself. This proposal removes restrictions on what can be used in unidirectional pattern synonyms, where @-pattern were previously disallowed. The restriction would make sense if patterns synonyms are macros, but they are not. I am always in favor of removing special cases and restrictions, so I recommend to accept this proposal. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

5 6

Plugin recompilation avoidance
by Ben Gamari 02 Mar '18

02 Mar '18

Hi everyone, I'm writing you in reference to GHC Proposal #108 [1], which introduces a mechanism allowing plugins greater control over GHC's recompilation behavior. The committee is currently considering this proposal for acceptance and while most of you have already expressed general support for the proposal during the discussion period, we wanted to check once more with you to ensure that no issues have gone unnoticed. If any of you have any final thoughts regarding the proposal, do let us know in the next few days. Otherwise we will accept the proposal as-is. Cheers, - Ben [1] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/108

2 1