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

It's clear that a lot of existing code expects A. Deprecating PatternSignatureBinds/ScopedTypeVariables is surely off the table for the foreseeable future, because it would be much too disruptive. But it would be a shame if GHC didn't make it *possible* to do B, which is all this proposal entails. I think it's too early to say whether removing PatternSignatureBinds/ScopedTypeVariables from a future GHC20xx will be a good idea at some point. It's conceivable, because as we've discussed before, it is possible to remove features from future GHC20xx editions without breaking existing code and while still supporting the features for backwards compatibility (perhaps indefinitely). And that should be enough to justify accepting this proposal IMHO. Adam On 29/01/2024 00:50, Eric Seidel wrote:

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 mailto:eric@seidel.io> 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 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 mailto:eric@seidel.io> 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 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

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/ Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England