Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Record syntax

I'm still where I was before: we should reject this proposal. The exploding state space of how code using (.) should be parsed and the fact that there are this many dark corners make this a bad idea. It's not worth it. I hope we'll get a proposal that doesn't trip into so many gnarly problems and achieves more of what is expected of a modern record system. It's worth waiting.

On Jan 28, 2020, at 08:05, Cale Gibbard wrote:

Hey guys, I'm new here, what is this weird dot nonsense? :D

Can we perhaps avoid overloading (.) further? Function composition is really important, and I was already upset at the lack of visual clarity by the time it was used for qualifying modules...

...

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 08:58, Eric Seidel wrote:

I agree with Joachim that we should have a formal vote on this point. It's contentious, as syntax always seems to be, so it would be good to get everyone's opinion on record, even if that opinion is just "2 and 3 both seem reasonable to me".

But, before we vote, it occurs to me that we have three new committee members (welcome!) who might have comments or questions. Alejandro, Cale, and Tom, have you been following the discussion so far, or do you need a summary? I wouldn't blame you, it's been dragging on for a very long time..

...

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, at 07:12, Joachim Breitner wrote: I know I know. It matters for what are the names of variables. My mental parser first looks what are the names (and handles module prefixes), and then the expression parser runs. At least in my head.

And module prefixes are not arbitrary expressions (yet…), but the `r` can be an arbitrary complex expression!

f (foo bar // baz).r

vs

f (foo bar // baz) .r

would be different under your proposal, but the same under mine.

But none of this is new to anyone here… why not just vote and get a decision?

Cheers, Joachim

Am 28. Januar 2020 12:58:34 MEZ schrieb Simon Peyton Jones :

...

| With function application, no space or space is irrelevant: | | f r"" = f r "" ≠ f (r "") = f (r "")

But that is not so

f r x ≠ f rx f M.x ≠ f M x

White space (or its absence) matters.

Simon

| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee | On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 28 January 2020 11:55 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Record syntax | | Hi, | | > Consider (f .x g .y h .z) | > | > (2) says this means ((((f .x) g) .y) h) .z), so that it parenthesises | > exactly like function application. | > | > (3) says it means (((f .x) (g .y)) (h .z)) which, while unambiguous, | > I dislike cordially. | > | > I propose to adopt (2). | | I agree that “exactly like function application” is a great, simple | universal way of explaining the parsing. | | But I can't stop pointing out that this is inconsistent if we insist | that `f r.x = f (r.x)`. | | With function application, no space or space is irrelevant: | | f r"" = f r "" ≠ f (r "") = f (r "") | | You propose | | f r.x ≠ f r .x = f (r .x) = f (r .x) | | while I am still attached to | | f r.x = f r .x ≠ f (r .x) = f (r .x) | | I know that this will disappoint a few who want their code to look like | it does in some other languages (many object oriented langauges, | Ocaml), and who do not want to put in the extra parentheses. But in | this case I am leaning towards the elegance of _really_ saying “exactly | like function application”, not only syntactically, but also morally (a | record is a function on a finite set of field names.) | I find this very justifiable for a functional programming language. | | And I find it very un-haskelly that going from a space to no space | between expressions makes a difference (I believe Simon Marlow shared | this reservation.) | | | If we do insist on “binds more tightly if no space”, then I am actually | in favor of “also binds more tightly if there is a space”, i.e. (3) | above, to avoid the whitespace-sensitivity. | | | So if it comes to a vote, I think these three options cover all | opinions so far? | | * f r .x = (f r).x; f r.x = f (r.x) -- Simon’s (2) | * f r .x = (f r).x; f r.x = (f r).x) -- My take on it | * f r .x = f (r.x); f r.x = f (r.x) -- Simon’s (3) | | Anything else? | | | If we vote, I hope we don't get too many abstinations. Nobody will be | personally offended if you vote “against” them (I hope), but whatever | outcome we have better have weight, and is supported by a high turnout. | | | And I think we should just vote; we keep rephrasing the same arguments | with different words. | | Cheers, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de | | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joach | im- | breitner.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C99dc94685bb34e | 1f694a08d7a3e8faa2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6371580933 | 72311824&sdata=N7iqz4VoL6oe4ICm3JIVVLW%2BBM%2BVIdGOeYa2obcjqdI%3D& | reserved=0 | | | _______________________________________________ | ghc-steering-committee mailing list | ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.has | kell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering- | committee&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C99dc94685bb34e1f694 | a08d7a3e8faa2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637158093372311 | 824&sdata=AnxNHulQCUqWkKaKYmEXYQMQwl3F1MDPYS64GIAnVhA%3D&reserved= | 0

---

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