I feel like there are three options here:
a) risk the fork
b) drop the lexical scoping principle and use type directed resolution
like Agda does
c) give up on syntactic unification (and thus a major part of DH.)
I don’t think this would be a terrible fork. And it is just a warning.
There are actually a lot of warnings and rules that I enforce in my
codebases which other projects don’t adhere to. When codes from
differents sides of the fork meet in one module there is always an
escape hatch.
Stylistic forks are fine, indeed I'm sure we all have our own set of favourite warnings. That's why some warnings are not in -Wall.
If this is just a stylistic fork then OK - I'm not familiar with all the subtleties here, happy to be informed.
Cheers
Simon
Best
Malte
On 2026-07-22 11:03, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On the one hand this is just a warning and not enabled by default, so
> its impact is small.
>
> On the other hand, I worry about the direction of travel here. Is the
> long term plan that we will stop using puns? So no more [a] and (a,b)
> types? Or maybe that's only if you're writing Dependent Haskell - but
> then I worry that we're heading for a fork in the language, which is
> something we specifically try to avoid.
>
> Cheers
> Simon
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 at 18:58, Jakob Brünker
> <[1]jakob.bruenker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Our own Jaro Reinders, based on a proposal originally by Artyom
> Kuznetsov, proposes to introduce `-Wpuns` and `-Wpun-bindings`, to warn
> users when the same name appears in the term namespace and type
> namespace:
>
> [2]https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/pun-warnings/pro
> posals/0000-pun-warnings.rst
>
> These warnings would not be enabled by default, but would bring us a
> step forward on the path outlined by the accepted proposal #378
> (Support the design for dependent types,
> [3]https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/378), by
> supporting writing code in a way that plays well with the principles
> described in that proposal (i.e. the lexical scoping principle and
> syntactic unification principle).
>
> They are also a good match for the recently introduced
> `-XNoListTuplePuns`, which already lets users avoid puns for some
> builtin types. Any users of `-XNoListTuplePuns` will likely want
> something along the lines of this proposal.
>
> I left some comments on the github thread but I think they are small
> enough that they don't have to prevent us from voting on it.
>
> I recommend we accept.
>
> Please indicate whether you wish to accept this proposal.
>
> Jakob
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list --
> [4]ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> [5]ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:jakob.bruenker@gmail.com
> 2. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/pun-warnings/proposals/0000-pun-warnings.rst
> 3. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/378
> 4. mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
> 5. mailto:ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org
_______________________________________________
ghc-steering-committee mailing list -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org