February 2014 - Libraries

Proposal: merge either into transformers
by Roman Cheplyaka 03 Jan '17

03 Jan '17

I propose to add the sole module of the 'either' package[1], Control.Monad.Trans.Either, to the transformers package. It provides EitherT, a very basic and fundamental data type. The difference between EitherT and ErrorT is that the latter has an Error constraint, which is used to imlement 'fail'. Note that 'either' depends on the 'semigroupoids' and 'semigroup' packages to provide appropriate instances. The proposal is not to add those instances to 'transformers' to avoid additional dependencies. The instances can then be left in the 'either' package or moved to the 'semigroupoids' and 'semigroup' packages respectively. ('semigroupoids' already depends on 'transformers', while 'semigroups' does not). Compared to the 'either' package, Show, Read, Eq and Ord instances will be dropped to keep the code Haskell2010 (those instances require FlexibleInstances, FlexibleContexts, and UndecidableInstances). The patch is attached. [*] [*] against transformers-0.3.0.0, because the darcs version is not buildable (Control/Monad/Signatures.hs is not in the repository). Roman

22 72

Proposal: improve the Data.Tree API
by João Cristóvão 01 Jan '15

01 Jan '15

Hello, The Data.Tree API seems rather poor. Some research on hackage shows some additional functions being defined in very unrelated packages: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/debian-3.81/docs/Debian-Apt-Dependencies… http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hledger-lib-0.22.1/docs/Hledger-Utils.ht… I propose the addition of the following functions, that seem rather straigh forward to me: -- | get the sub-tree rooted at the first (left-most, depth-first) occurrence -- of the specified node value lookupTree :: Eq a => a -> Tree a -> Maybe (Tree a) -- | get the sub-tree rooted at the first (left-most, depth-first) value that -- matches the provided condition findTree :: (a -> Bool) -> Tree a -> Maybe (Tree a) -- | keep only the elements that match the provided condition filter :: (a -> Bool) -> Tree a -> Tree a The 'Tree' is appended in the name, to distinguish from the Foldable instances, that return the value, and not a sub-tree. Additionally, the following two functions might also be useful (even if the implementation is very simple in the second case): -- | get the sub-tree for the specified node value in the first tree in -- forest in which it occurs. lookupTreeInForest :: Eq a => a -> [Tree a] -> Maybe (Tree a) -- | Length of the tree length :: Tree a -> Int There are probably more useful functions to add, so suggestions are welcomed. Previous discussion: https://github.com/haskell/containers/issues/39#issuecomment-35799628 Discussion period: 2 weeks Cheers, João

12 35

Removing MonadFail from Monad
by David Luposchainsky 03 Oct '14

03 Oct '14

Hey everyone, I feel like there are a couple of elephants in the room that are sort of important but nobody really addresses them directly. One of them was what became the AMP, and `fail` is another one. I resurrected and refurbished this proposal from a 6 month old Gist because there seemed to be some interest/talk going on in the form of side remarks in other discussions here. The sun shines, let's make some hay! The proposal text can be found at the end of this text (for the mailman archives), or in pretty HTML here: https://github.com/quchen/articles/blob/master/monad_fail.md Although this will technically a language-level change, the impact will mainly be a library and fail-safety detail. For this reason I think this mailing list is more suitable than other more specialized lists. Greetings, David/quchen PS: I would have chosen Fail Removal Proposal so we have a new buzzword, but unfortunately it does not abbreviate well. Call it the "fail of Haskell issue"? ;-) Removing `fail` from `Monad` ============================ The problem ----------- Currently, the `<-` symbol is desugared as follows: ```haskell do pat <- computation >>> let f pat = more more >>> f _ = fail "..." >>> in computation >>= f ``` The problem with this is that `fail` cannot be sensibly implemented for many monads, for example `State`, `IO`, `Reader`. In those cases it defaults to `error`, i.e. the monad has a built-in crash. `MonadFail` class ----------------- To fix this, introduce a new typeclass: ```haskell class Monad m => MonadFail m where fail :: String -> m a ``` Desugaring is then changed to the following: ```haskell -- Explicitly irrefutable pattern: do not add MonadFail constraint do ~pat <- computation >>> let f pat = more more >>> in computation >>= f -- Only one data constructor: do not add MonadFail constraint do (Only x) <- computation >>> let f (Only x) = more more >>> in computation >>= f -- Otherwise: add MonadFail constraint do pat <- computation >>> let f pat = more more >>> f _ = fail "..." >>> in computation >>= f ``` Discussion ---------- - Although for many `MonadPlus` `fail _ = mzero`, a separate `MonadFail` class should be created. A parser might fail with an error message involving positional information, and for STM failure is undefined although it is `MonadPlus`. - The case of one data constructor should emit a warning if the data type is defined via `data`: adding another data constructor can make patterns in unrelated modules refutable. - Some monads use the pattern matching to force evaluation of the binding, for example lazy/strict `StateT`. I'm not sure what exactly the consequences of the above are here; I suspect a strictness annotation or `(>>=)` instead of `do` notation might be sufficient. - Getting the change to work should be boring but painless: all Monad instance declarations involving `fail` will break because the function is removed, and many monadic computations have to be annotated using `~` because they were written under the assumption that `fail` is never called. In both these cases compilation errors/warnings carry sufficient information to fix the source code easily. - Backwards compatibility with many old modules will be broken; I don't see a way around this. Other things to consider ------------------------ - Rename `fail`? It's quite a generic name that would be nice to have in APIs. `failM`? `mfail`? - Remove the `String` argument? (May hurt error reporting on pattern mismatch ..?) - How sensitive would existing code be to subtle changes in the strictness behaviour of `do` notation pattern matching? Applying the change ------------------- Like the AMP, 1. Implement ad-hoc warnings that code will receive a `MonadFail` constraint in a future version. "Either make the patterns irrefutable, or keep in mind that the next compiler version will require a `MonadFail` instance". Since `MonadFail` does not clash with an existing name, it could be introduced to `Control.Monad` right away. 2. Do the switch.

9 11

Proposal: Use time rather than old-time in directory
by Ian Lynagh 16 Sep '14

16 Sep '14

Hi all, This proposal is to change directory to use the time package rather than the old-time package. This will hopefully be a significant step towards actually making the transition in general. I'm not sure if POSIXTime or UTCTime is the better type to use. Does anyone know? I started off with UTCTime, then switched to POSIXTime as UTCTime didn't have a Show instance. I've since found that actually UTCTime has both Show and Read instances, but they are orphaned. So actually, if UTCTime is the better type then switching back to UTCTime would allow us to fix this comment in hpc: -- We would rather use ClockTime in Mix, but ClockTime has no Read instance and simplify the code slightly. Attached are patches for directory, hpc and ghc. Suggested discussion period: Until 5th Nov 2011. Thanks Ian

14 35

Proposal: Add Data.Semigroup to base, as a superclass of Monoid
by John Wiegley 11 Aug '14

11 Aug '14

1. I propose that we add the following package to base: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/semigroups/0.9.2/doc/html/Data-… This is somewhat in the spirit of the AMP proposal: further improving the correctness of our algebraic abstractions. 2. That we make Semigroup a superclass of Monoid, so that (minimally): class Semigroup a where (<>) :: a -> a -> a class Semigroup a => Monoid a where mempty :: a mconcat :: [a] -> a mconcat = foldr (<>) mempty mappend :: Semigroup a => a -> a -> a mappend = (<>) 3. (Optional, recommended) There are other useful functions that can be added to Semigroup, such as sconcat and times1p, but I will let Edward speak to whether those should be proposed at this time. 4. (Optional, recommended) That we fix the Monoid instance for Maybe to be: instance Semigroup a => Semigroup (Maybe a) where Just x <> Just y = Just (x <> y) _ <> _ = Nothing instance Semigroup a => Monoid (Maybe a) where mempty = Nothing For some clarification on what semigroups are and why we'd want to change Monoid, I excerpt here a selection from Brent Yorgey's "Monoids and Variations" paper: Semigroups A semigroup is like a monoid without the requirement of an identity element: it consists simply of a set with an associative binary operation.... Of course, any monoid is automatically a semigroup (by forgetting about its identity element). In the other direction, to turn a semigroup into a monoid, simply add a new distinguished element to serve as the identity, and extend the definition of the binary operation appropriately. This creates an identity element by definition, and it is not hard to see that it preserves associativity.... Adding a new distinguished element to a type is typically accomplished by wrapping it in Maybe. One might therefore expect to turn an instance of Semigroup into an instance of Monoid by wrapping it in Maybe. Sadly, Data.Monoid does not define semigroups, and has a Monoid instance for Maybe which requires a Monoid constraint on its argument type... This is somewhat odd: in essence, it ignores the identity element of [the type] and replaces it with a different one. -- John Wiegley FP Complete Haskell tools, training and consulting http://fpcomplete.com johnw on #haskell/irc.freenode.net

9 9

Re: Add laws to Alternative
by Twan van Laarhoven 28 May '14

28 May '14

On 01/11/13 12:44, Nathan van Doorn wrote: > Firstly, I don't see how IO is relevant here, it has neither a MonadPlus > instance nor an Alternative instance. You are right. I thought it was an instance with mzero=fail "foo" and mplus=catch. But I was apparently mistaken. Objection withdrawn. > Secondly, the MonadPlus laws are documented in Control.Monad to be: > > mzero >>= f = mzero > v >> mzero = mzero I missed them, because they are written in the documentation of mzero rather than the documentation of the class where I expected them. > Thirdly, the monoid laws are already documented. (<|>) must be "An associative > binary operation", and empty "The identity of <|>". These are exactly the monoid > laws. Perhaps they should be made more explicit, but that is a different issue. Missed this as well. > Fourthly, [] fulfils neither the left-distribution law or the left-catch law, > and I doubt many people would be happy to lose []'s MonadPlus instance. List does satisfy left distribution: λ> (,) <$> ([1,2] <|> [3]) <*> [4,5] [(1,4),(1,5),(2,4),(2,5),(3,4),(3,5)] λ> (,) <$> [1,2] <*> [4,5] <|> (,) <$> [3] <*> [4,5] [(1,4),(1,5),(2,4),(2,5),(3,4),(3,5)] λ> quickCheck (\x y z -> ((,) <$> (x <|> y :: [Int]) <*> (z :: [Int])) == (((,) <$> x <*> z) <|> ((,) <$> y <*> z))) +++ OK, passed 100 tests. See also http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/MonadPlus. Then law which it doesn't is right distribution. Consider Maybe. it does satisfies left catch but not left distribution for MonadPlus. Since mplus (Just False >>= guard) (Just True >>= guard) = Just () while mplus (Just False) (Just True) >>= guard = Nothing But for Alternative, you can't have the failure of the second argument of (<*>) depend on the first. So Maybe *does* satisfy left distribution for Alternative. IMO that makes it a good candidate law. Twan > I believe I have addressed all your issues. If I've missed something, please > point it out to me. > > Nathan. > > > On 1 November 2013 12:09, Twan van Laarhoven <twanvl(a)gmail.com > <mailto:twanvl@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 01/11/13 11:42, Nathan van Doorn wrote: > > Proposal: add the following laws to the documentation of > Control.Applicative.__Alternative: > > * empty <*> a = empty > * f <*> empty = empty > > > These laws correspond to the laws given in MonadPlus- if you take mzero = > > empty and ap = (<*>), the ones in MonadPlus imply these- and I don't think > > this proposal should be too controversial. > > As far as I can see, the documentation for MonadPlus does not specify these > laws anywhere [1,2]. > > Consider the IO monad. These laws claim that > > launchMissiles *> fail "empty" = fail "empty" > > This is clearly *not* true. > > -- > > If we add laws, I think we should first consider the much more reasonable > monoid laws > > identity > empty <|> a = a > a <|> empty = a > associativity: > (a <|> b) <|> c = a <|> (b <|> c) > > In the MonadPlus world, the controversial part is the choice between > > left distribution > (f <|> g) <*> a = (f <*> a) <|> (g <*> a) > > or > > left catch > pure a <|> b = pure a > > Your proposal would be > > left zero > > empty <*> a = empty > right zero > > f <*> empty = empty > > And as mentioned above, right zero is problematic. The fmap version should > be okay though > > map zero > f <$> empty = empty > > > Twan > > [1] > http://hackage.haskell.org/__package/base-4.6.0.1/docs/__Control-Monad.html… > <http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.6.0.1/docs/Control-Monad.html#t:M…> > [2] http://www.haskell.org/__haskellwiki/MonadPlus > <http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/MonadPlus> > _________________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > Libraries(a)haskell.org <mailto:Libraries@haskell.org> > http://www.haskell.org/__mailman/listinfo/libraries > <http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries> > >

9 11

RFC: include a cabal-install executable in future GHC releases
by Carter Schonwald 03 May '14

03 May '14

Hey everyone, I'd like to propose that GHC releases 7.8.1 onwards include a cabal-install (aka cabal) executable, but not include the library deps of cabal-install that aren't already distributed with ghc.(unless ghc should have those deps baked in, which theres very very good reasons not to do.). currently if someone wants just a basic haskell install of the freshest ghc they have to install a ghc bindist, then do a boostrap build of cabal-install by hand (if they want to actually get anything done :) ). This is not a human friendly situation for folks who are new to haskell tooling, but want to try out haskell dev on a server style vm or the like! point being: It'd be great for haskell usability (and egads amounts of config time, even by seasoned users) the ghc bindists / installers included a cabal-install binary thoughts? -Carter

16 40

Burning more bridges (mostly numeric ones)
by Carter Charbonneau 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

The Burning Bridges thread got lots done, but seemed to miss a few things, and didn't even touch on the Numeric classes. The Numeric classes should be fixed at some point, and sooner is better than later. However, it would be a large change and would go nicely with a major version bump in base. 5 is coming up soon. Proposals, ordered from relatively controversial to insanely so (at least IMO): 1. Replace (.) and id from versions from Control.Category in Prelude This is a small change, and has close to the same effect as the Foldable/ Traversable change. The key difference is that this is a much smaller change and there is little current use for the versions from Control.Category However, historically they have seen use with the other lens-ish libraries, and AFAICT are the reason the lenses in `lens` are "backwards", or at least called so my some. 1.2 Use Semigroupoid for (.) and Ob for id instead. Personally, I really like this idea, but I think it would be much more controversial. 2. Move Semigroup into Prelude 2.1 Make Monoid depend on Semigroup. 3. Do something with the Numeric classes. This isn't so much of a proposal as a request for discussion from people more experienced than me, but I still think a general idea if people think that doing *anything* is a good idea would be useful. 3.1 Split each numeric operation into it's own class. Say no to 3.2 and yes here for no hierarchy in them/ConstraintKinds/empty classes. Pros: EDSLs, convenience. Cons: Would be major breakage, would need ConstraintKinds/empty classes to have a hierarchy. 3.2 Hierarchy. the classes are TBD, this is here for a straw poll.

13 24

PVP proposal: don't require major version bump when adding non-orphan instances
by Johan Tibell 18 Mar '14

18 Mar '14

Hi all, (This email is about trying to improve the PVP. If you think the PVP is a bad idea to begin with, please discuss that in a separate email thread.) The PVP [1] states that A.B is known as the major version number, and C the minor version number. > When a package is updated, the following rules govern how the version > number must change relative to the previous version: > > - If any entity was removed, or the types of any entities or the > definitions of datatypes or classes were changed, or instances were added > or removed, then the new A.B must be greater than the previous A.B. Note > that modifying imports or depending on a newer version of another package > may cause extra instances to be exported and thus force a major version > change. > > > - Otherwise, if only new bindings, types, classes or modules (but see > below) were added to the interface, then A.B may remain the same but the > new C must be greater than the old C. > > > - Otherwise, A.B.C may remain the same (other version components may > change). > > Bumping the major version number often introduce a number of downstream changes, as package author need to loosen dependency constraints to allow the new package version to be used. This creates quite a bit of work for maintainers. A particular onerous requirement is to have to bump the major version whenever you add a new instance. In spirit adding a new instances feels like adding a new function, like making an extension to the API, something ought to not break clients who use qualified imports and/or explicit import lists. For this reason and because of the cost to downstream maintainers, I've sometimes avoided bumping the major version in the past when adding a new instance. However, introducing a new instance can only break other packages if those packages define orphan instance. Here's my reasoning: 1. Assume there are no orphan instances. 2. Package D defines a data type and package C defines a type class (it's possible that D=C.) 3. An instance can only be added by either D or C. 4. D and C cannot both depend on each other, so both cannot add the same instance. 5. Another package O cannot add an instance (remember that orphans are disallowed). 6. Since O cannot define an instance, there cannot be any conflicts in O if D or C (whichever depends on the other) adds an instance. If this is true, we could change the first two PVP rules to (differences in *italics*): - If any entity was removed, or the types of any entities or the definitions of datatypes or classes were changed, or *orphan* instances were added or *any instances were* removed, then the new A.B must be greater than the previous A.B. Note that modifying imports or depending on a newer version of another package may cause extra instances to be exported and thus force a major version change. - Otherwise, if only new bindings, types, classes, *non-orphan instances*, or modules (but see below) were added to the interface, then A.B may remain the same but the new C must be greater than the old C. and add the following clarifying sentence: *If a package defines an orphan instance, it must depend on the minor version of the packages that define the data type and the type class to be backwards compatible. For example, build-depends: mypkg >= 2.1.1 && < 2.1.2.* I believe this would result in less work for maintainers. 1. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Package_versioning_policy Discussion period: 3 weeks. -- Johan

13 18

Proposal: Explicitly require "Data.Bits.bit (-1) == 0" property
by Herbert Valerio Riedel 08 Mar '14

08 Mar '14

Hello *, Right now, there seems to be no "defined" way to create a zero 'Bits'-value (w/o requiring also a 'Num' instance), that has all bits cleared without involving at least two operations from the 'Bits' class (e.g. `clearBit (bit 0) 0` or `let x = bit 0 in xor x x`). OTOH, introducing a new method 'class Bits a where bitZero :: a' seems overkill to me. However, "bit (-1)"[1] seems to result in just such a zero-value for all 'Bits' instances from base, so I'd hereby propose to simply document this as an expected property of 'bit', as well as the recommended way to introduce a zero-value (for when 'Num' is not available). Discussion period: 2 weeks [1]: ...or more generally 'bit n == 0' for n<0, as it's usually implemented as 'bit n = 1 shift n'

36 147