Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #608, -XPatternSignatureBinds. Rec: accept

Hi, I had to peek at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0378-de... to remind myself whether the “Local Lexical Scoping Principle” (every mention of a variable is clearly a binder or a reference) was part of that, or just the “Lexical Scoping Principle” is. Turns out the LLSP isn’t part of it. But I have a vague memory that the LSP together with the SUP is much easier when we have the LLSP? Anyways, partly because of the dubious status and future of ScopedTypeVariables, as a user I found myself wanting to enable the simple part of pattern binds (do `xs :: String ← …`) without enable other parts of that extension. Cheers, Joachim Am Sonntag, dem 28.01.2024 um 18:50 -0600 schrieb Eric Seidel:

Yep that’s the question. 

If we were starting from scratch I would agree that B is better. But I worry that there may be a lot of code out there that expects A.

So then this becomes a question of tradeoffs, is the simplification benefit of this change sufficient to justify the migration cost we may be imposing on the community? 

It seems unlikely to me.

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Jan 28, 2024, at 12:22, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

> When I review a proposal for a new extension, one of the

...

questions I ask myself is "would I eventually support including this in a GHC20xx standard?" If the answer is no (and if the extension is not one of the advanced or niche things like CPP), then I'm much less likely to support it.

Aha.  Now I understand your point thanks.

In the glorious future, what do we want?  * Plan A.   "A pattern signature brings into scope any variables that aren't already in scope".  It's a bit of a tricky rule. If we see `f (Just x) = rhs` we know that it brings `x` into scope regardless.  Simple.  No so with pattern-signatures!      * Plan B.   Pattern signatures never bring anything into scope.  To do that, use @type patterns.  For example, instead of        f (Just (x::a)) = rhs    say        f (Just @a x) = rhs    Now it's clear that `a` is being brought into scope. I lean towards Plan B, but you raise a good point.  I'd love to know what our consensus is.   RSVP steering committee members.

Simon

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 00:12, Eric Seidel wrote:

...

I think it's mostly a philosophical point. We have GHC2021 which is the current "blessed" version of the language. It includes ScopedTypeVariables, which if I understand correctly is a superset of PatternSigs. We also want to move in the direction of having *fewer* interacting extensions. In my mind that is one of the main motivations for introducing the GHC20xx standards. When I review a proposal for a new extension, one of the questions I ask myself is "would I eventually support including this in a GHC20xx standard?" If the answer is no (and if the extension is not one of the advanced or niche things like CPP), then I'm much less likely to support it.

So what is the purpose of refactoring extensions that are implied by ScopedTypeVariables? It seems like needless churn if ScopedTypeVariables is here to stay. On the other hand, if we mean to change ScopedTypeVariables we should be explicit about that.

On Sat, Jan 27, 2024, at 16:56, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

...

To me this looks uncontroversial.    • We have a currently-deprecated extension -XPatternSignatures   • This proposal rehabilitates it (with a narrower scope than before) and adds a new one -XPatternSignatureBinds   • If you don't use these extensions they won't harm you   • The behaviour of -XScopedTypeVariables is unchanged It's a fairly tiny thing, easy to implement, easy to document.  I don't care very much, but I'm content to approve it.

My only regret is that we don't have a "warning form" for language extensions (see https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/620) . I'd like to say -WPatternSignatureBinds, meaning to allow pattern-signatures to bind, but warn on every such occasion.  Lacking such a "warning form" we have to *also* have `-Wpattern-signature-binds`.

Eric, I'm not sure what specifically you are objecting to.  Are you making a philosophical point, or is there active harm here?

Simon

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 19:44, Eric Seidel wrote:

...

The motivation for this change does not make sense to me. ScopedTypeVariables is used everywhere and is even part of GHC2021. The goal of this change appears to be to extract out a controversial piece of PatternSignatures such that it could be later removed entirely, but without addressing the issue of ScopedTypeVariables.

That's going about it the wrong way IMO. If we want to remove the behavior this proposal calls PatternSignatureBinds, the Committee should first adopt a resolution that we will remove (or alter the meaning of) ScopedTypeVariables in the next GHC20xx. If we get agreement on that, then this proposal could make sense as a step towards the broader goal.

Outside of that broader agreement though, this feels more like a fork-inducing proposal and I would vote against.

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 11:32, Richard Eisenberg wrote:

...

John Ericson has submitted proposal #608 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/608 about adding -XPatternSignatureBinds. The proposal is an amendment and is thus a little harder to consume. I recommend reading the summary here.

Proposed change:

The proposed -XPatternSignatureBinds takes a piece out from -XPatternSignatures: with only -XPatternSignatures and not -XPatternSignatureBinds, a pattern signature  can mention in-scope type variables but can never bind fresh ones. With -XPatternSignatureBinds, an appearance of an out-of-scope type variable in a pattern signature will cause the variable to be bound to the type it unifies with.

-XScopedTypeVariables will imply -XPatternSignatures -XPatternSignatureBinds (and a few more), so the behavior of -XScopedTypeVariables is completely unchanged. Note that -XPatternSignatures is currently deprecated (and has been so for a long time), so a change in behavior there is not so bad.

Motivation for the change:

- It is awkward to have a rule in a language where scoping behavior depends on what else is in scope. This can confound e.g. tools meant to find the bindings sites of a variable occurrence. - The implicit binding we have today plays poorly with the plan to allow users to pretend GHC has a unified namespace. That is, suppose x is in scope as a term variable, and then we have f (... :: ... x ...) = ... . Should that x be bound implicitly there or not? It's pretty unclear. By separating out -XPatternSignatureBinds from -XPatternSignatures, users of the latter are insulated from worrying about this potential future change.

My opinion:

- John has argued that this will make future namespace changes easier. I disagree with this assessment, because -XScopedTypeVariables is utterly pervasive. So the problem that this change is supposed to solve becomes only a tiny bit smaller, benefiting only those users who carefully enable -XPatternSignatures but not, say, -XScopedTypeVariables. - But in the end, I don't care all that much. I've come to the opinion that we shouldn't worry about the distinction between warnings and extensions. The net effect of this proposal is to promote a warning into an extension (because we previously had -Wpattern-signature-binds). So if we shouldn't worry about this distinction, then this proposal is a no-op on the aspects of the language we should care about, and thus accepting and rejecting have the same effect. (This little analysis only makes sense because the features are so new -- there's no broad re-education to do or back-compat issues.) - Accepting will make at least one person (John) happy. And I don't note anyone who would become unhappy. More happy people is more better. So I recommend acceptance. :)

Please let us know your thoughts! Richard _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

---

ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

---

ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

-- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/