Sorry for being vague: I support emitting the constraint equating the linearity annotation to `Many` whenever the binding is of a form that linearity can't handle, with a CtOrigin that makes for a good error message.

I also support allowing bang-less patterns to be linear with -XStrict; my understanding of the specification of -XStrict is that it should mean "put bangs everywhere", so accepting bang-less patterns as linear here sounds right. My hope is that this is actually a simplification, because I would imagine there some notion of "strict binding" -- encompassing both a binding with an outer ! and any binding with -XStrict -- and then this new feature just hooks into that one.

Richard

On Jan 16, 2024, at 12:52 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard

Arnaud articulates some alternatives, which I am very fuzzy about (as I say in my email).

Can you say which alternative you support?   (I'm thinking of the language design only; I'm sure we can implement whichever design we choose.)

Simon

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 18:52, Richard Eisenberg <rae@richarde.dev> wrote:

I say we have our cake and eat it, too: get better inference and better error messages. I think this shouldn't be all that hard: when emitting the constraint that the linearity of the binding is `Many`, use an appropriate `CtOrigin` that can render as an informative message. I haven't gone through the code to see exactly the best structure here, but I feel pretty confident that this should be straightforward.

So I'm for the design Arnaud articulates below, but support the proposal regardless.

Richard

On Jan 12, 2024, at 3:08 AM, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:

At Richard's prompting, I've added the following alternative to the proposal (the current proposal is the most conservative of the two, which we can choose to stick to if we're unsure). I'm copying the alternative here because rendering seems to be broken on Github right now.

I'm rather agnostic on which side we choose, to be honest. Anyone with medium-to-strong opinions on the question?

Restrictions of multiplicity-annotated let bindings
---------------------------------------------------

The proposal specifies that a multiplicity annotated non-variable let binding ``let %p pat``
must be such that ``pat = !pat'`` even if ``p = 'Many``. It is easy to
lift this restriction on two dimension:

- We can say, instead, that patterns not of the form ``!pat'`` emit a
  ``p ~ 'Many`` constraint instead. They already do (for the sake of
  inference), so this is strictly less code.
- We can generalise to more strict patterns. For instance, we don't
  need to require a ``!`` if ``-XStrict`` is on, we can have patterns
  of the form ``(!pat')`` (with additional parentheses). This is a few
  lines of codes, inference actually already does this in my
  implementation, so it's already paid for (though it does annoyingly
  mostly duplicate another definition of strict pattern which I
  couldn't find a way to factor as a single function, I don't like
  this).

The reason that motivated the stronger restriction is to improve error
messages, because we can then error out with “multiplicity-annotated
let-bound patterns must be of the form !pat”, instead of the more
mysterious “Couldn't unify 'Many with 'One”
(see `#23586 <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/23586>`_).
But maybe the additional restrictions are more surprising than the
error messages are helpful.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 10:07, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

I support acceptance.  Let's land this soon.

Simon

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 04:45, Richard Eisenberg <rae@richarde.dev> wrote:

Hi all,

I've reviewed Arnaud's https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/624 and wish to recommend acceptance.

The proposal is an amendment to the proposal for linear types, adding support for linear let bindings.

Today, if you have

f :: T %1-> T

f t = let t2 = t in t2

you'll get an error because t2 is not linear. The only way to bind a linear variable is via a `case`, never a `let` or `where`. This is annoying. With this proposal, the little program above is accepted, with an inferred linearity restriction on t2. Users can also annotated their lets like `let %1 x = ... in ...`. Bindings in `where` clauses can also be inferred or annotated as linear.

There is a downside, of course: linear bindings have various restrictions, chiefly that they must be strict bindings (because projections are hard with linear types) and that bindings cannot be generalized. I'm a little unsure that the choices in the proposal (particularly around generalization) are the best for users, but I think the best way to learn is to experiment. In my understanding, the community knows that -XLinearTypes is subject to revision, and so I think we should just blast ahead, revising if and when necessary.

Please share your thoughts!

Thanks,

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

--

Arnaud Spiwack
Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.