-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} Show a => Show [a] where ...

instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} Show [Char] where ...

This, to me, is an admission that developers are not going to want to turn overlapping on globally in general, and so the current language extensions would not make sense to get adopted into the core language at any point. I agree with this idea, and so would second the proposal mentioned at http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/2c136i/xoverlappinginstances_and_xi... that a language extension that adds actual keywords to tag instances that should be allowed to overlap be added, instead of resorting to pragmas. This seems like an approach that could be useful in general and one could imagine moving "past" an extension to the core language at some point, potentially. - -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See http://singpolyma.net for how I prefer to be contacted edition right joseph -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJT2DFBAAoJENEcKRHOUZzemmIQAJEbSjPyx745UI6mkuhBVhKl LQWJlpu0/kzBHaFJl/mWcghKxoBFWwU+pCTh/Pr2oj0rp/KGskBLlplIqB4btZTA ov2MpPrsHm1M37MuGyMtiBhs57UJE+saKKuvcH3qzLZyBCHorE3lFcKAFbNupBrL e/vgNblQ70KGmDRAKqbAQHm9anoGeZUJPgQ9ylVEH4nBYLDo0YSNo/zTeB7fK2yv xBE+Ul3YGfhzf82cLJhYNQOpi5wJ3JEDBevKXcGRzr4Mhzn2Lke+26tu0tx6sOSN snPX2REoeQD1AfXvuNKSxV7BL+CQeyAOOmm2Isj3vW/oO3gkqpfRjCFc+ZSPEjlG XQ3S7L7cgNB34rd6sOFzTv83PXvsH0a0d5RqKUM2kN/qGEjSbAQ1FVyJEUcaEmzr jBnVnWq+abCOSOBg4joGfTxjq0zufdjxkzScEJVDVZ4pIXoxej7HJBi8UfIvo3Jo EDMGGsLSedt4tR2LzYf/5up7GPfuBsFQQzuIcdgMG8/zYca7zWPJgyunlXAPcbzr RvM/gf63SCBuVaQjrtv2Zhzp3PucWOL94NEmLYONU3uuEmo6bq1VO42fOUcl7X/1 UyhFbtoV7s/7PVClxdD4Ag9PumtSfl/CSvN0BA8AzDwTuHWNOPdThAHFqfAtRsD0 GyNzVRNOGuze9SqkLc4T =YeKu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Friends, in sending my message below, I should also have sent a link to https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9242#comment:25 Comment 25 describes the semantics of OVERLAPPING/OVERLAPPABLE etc, which I signally failed to do in my message below, leading to confusion in the follow up messages. My apologies for that. Some key points: * There is a useful distinction between overlapping and overlappable, but if you don't want to be bothered with it you can just say OVERLAPS (which means both). * Overlap between two candidate instances is allowed if either has the relevant property. This is a bit sloppy, but reduces the annotation burden. Actually, with this per-instance stuff I think it'd be perfectly defensible to require both to be annotated, but that's a different discussion. I hope that helps clarify. I'm really pretty certain that the basic proposal here is good: it implements the current semantics in a more fine-grained manner. My main motivation was to signal the proposed deprecation of the global per-module flag -XoverlappingInstances. Happily people generally seem fine with this. It is, after all, precisely what deprecations are for ("the old thing still works for now, but it won't do so for ever, and you should change as soon as is convenient"). Thanks Simon From: Libraries [mailto:libraries-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Simon Peyton Jones Sent: 29 July 2014 10:11 To: ghc-devs; GHC users; Haskell Libraries (libraries@haskell.org) Subject: Overlapping and incoherent instances Friends One of GHC's more widely-used features is overlapping (and sometimes incoherent) instances. The user-manual documentation is herehttp://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-class-extension.... The use of overlapping/incoherent instances is controlled by LANGUAGE pragmas: OverlappingInstances and IncoherentInstances respectively. However the overlap/incoherent-ness is a property of the *instance declaration* itself, and has been for a long time. Using LANGUAGE OverlappingInstances simply sets the "I am an overlapping instance" flag for every instance declaration in that module. This is a Big Hammer. It give no clue about *which* particular instances the programmer is expecting to be overlapped, nor which are doing the overlapping. It brutally applies to every instance in the module. Moreover, when looking at an instance declaration, there is no nearby clue that it might be overlapped. The clue might be in the command line that compiles that module! Iavor has recently implemented per-instance-declaration pragmas, so you can say instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} Show a => Show [a] where ... instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} Show [Char] where ... This is much more precise (it affects only those specific instances) and it is much clearer (you see it when you see the instance declaration). This new feature will be in GHC 7.10 and I'm sure you will be happy about that. But I propose also to deprecate the LANGUAGE pragmas OverlappingInstances and IncoherentInstances, as way to encourage everyone to use the new feature instead of the old big hammer. The old LANGUAGE pragmas will continue to work, of course, for at least another complete release cycle. We could make that two cycles if it was helpful. However, if you want deprecation-free libraries, it will entail a wave of library updates. This email is just to warn you, and to let you yell if you think this is a bad idea. It would actually not be difficult to retain the old LANGUAGE pragmas indefinitely - it just seems wrong not to actively push authors in the right direction. These deprecations of course popped up in the test suite, so I've been replacing them with per-instance pragmas there too. Interestingly in some cases, when looking for which instances needed the pragmas, I found...none. So OverlappingInstances was entirely unnecessary. Maybe library authors will find that too! Simon

To me, perhaps naively, IncoherentInstances is way more scary than OverlappingInstances. What behavior do these new pragmas have? In particular, will it be an error if there is no single most specific instance? And can the user decide whether it is an error? Twan On 29/07/14 11:11, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

Friends

One of GHC’s more widely-used features is overlapping (and sometimes incoherent) instances. The user-manual documentation is here http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/type-class-extension....

The use of overlapping/incoherent instances is controlled by LANGUAGE pragmas: OverlappingInstances and IncoherentInstances respectively.

However the overlap/incoherent-ness is a property of the **instance declaration** itself, and has been for a long time. Using LANGUAGE OverlappingInstances simply sets the “I am an overlapping instance” flag for every instance declaration in that module.

This is a Big Hammer. It give no clue about **which** particular instances the programmer is expecting to be overlapped, nor which are doing the overlapping. It brutally applies to every instance in the module. Moreover, when looking at an instance declaration, there is no nearby clue that it might be overlapped. The clue might be in the command line that compiles that module!

Iavor has recently implemented per-instance-declaration pragmas, so you can say

instance {-# OVERLAPPABLE #-} Show a => Show [a] where …

instance {-# OVERLAPPING #-} Show [Char] where …

This is much more precise (it affects only those specific instances) and it is much clearer (you see it when you see the instance declaration).

This new feature will be in GHC 7.10 and I’m sure you will be happy about that. *But I propose also to deprecate the LANGUAGE pragmas OverlappingInstances and IncoherentInstances*, as way to encourage everyone to use the new feature instead of the old big hammer. The old LANGUAGE pragmas will continue to work, of course, for at least another complete release cycle. We could make that two cycles if it was helpful.

However, if you want deprecation-free libraries, it will entail a wave of library updates.

This email is just to warn you, and to let you yell if you think this is a bad idea. It would actually not be difficult to retain the old LANGUAGE pragmas indefinitely – it just seems wrong not to actively push authors in the right direction.

These deprecations of course popped up in the test suite, so I’ve been replacing them with per-instance pragmas there too. Interestingly in some cases, when looking for which instances needed the pragmas, I found…none. So OverlappingInstances was entirely unnecessary. Maybe library authors will find that too!

Simon

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users