I'm generally OK with this proposal -- small benefits, but small costs too. I left some comments here. <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/765#issuecomment-4978364292> Only one is substantial. - Do we really want to include list and tuple puns in the scope of the flag. Using () and (a,b) and [a] as types is so ubiquitous that few programs will compile warning free if you switch on `-Wpun-occurrences`. - Indeed, do we want to have `-Wpun-occurrences` at all. I argue against in my comment. Simon On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 at 22:28, Jakob Brünker <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:
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/pun-warnings/proposals/0...
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, 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 -- ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-steering-committee-leave@haskell.org