<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.Code, li.Code, div.Code
{mso-style-name:Code;
mso-style-link:"Code Char";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.CodeChar
{mso-style-name:"Code Char";
mso-style-link:Code;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:349643371;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1031462506 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Yes, I’m fine with accepting as-is. Actually the discussion has been quite illuminating. I learned<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">An idea for improving inferred types (Trac #16070)<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">An understanding that<o:p></o:p></span>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="circle">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Type families are in some ways more expressive because they support evidence<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">But fundeps allow overlap (which for soundness type families must eschew) and that allows a different kind of expressiveness.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">So the two overlap, but neither subsumes the other. And I think the choice is fundamental; the overlap stuff in fundeps is allowed precisely because it only affect unification,
and doesn’t turn into evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">For HasField we don’t need overlap.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">However, even if we used a type-family encoding, a 3-parameter class is probably best, because it leads to briefer types.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">And, absent #16070, the error messages with fundeps are better, and the extra expressiveness of type families has not (yet) become important
for HasField.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Conclusion: use fundeps for now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Simon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki@gmail.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 08 January 2019 23:10<br>
<b>To:</b> Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion for #158 "Add `setFild` to `HasField`"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">does anyone else have any input on this proposal? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There has been some discussion on Simon's point about using a type-family instead of a fun-dep. The outcome of the discussion is a little unclear, but here is a very brief summary to the best of my understanding:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * Either approach works, but with the current GHC implementations both approaches have some pros and some cons.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * Fun-deps (used in the current design) are a bit more restrictive as they do not produce evidence at the moment<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * There are two ways to use type families instead of fun-deps:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> a) the class has 2 parameters, and the third is computed from them using a type family<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> b) the class remains with 3 parameters, but it gets a super-class constraint, where a type-family encodes the functional dependency<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * Either type family encoding leads to types that look more verbose, both in errors and inferred types.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> * There are some ideas about how this might be improved for type families in general (see #16070)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The choice of type-families/fun-deps is quite orthogonal to the original proposal, which is about adding a way to update records. We were discussing it,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">because it is quite tempting to roll-up multiple interface breaking changes into one.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the interest of making progress, my vote would be to accept the proposal as is, and delay switching to type families to a separate proposal,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">which might look better once the improvements in #16070 are figured out.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What does everyone else think?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-Iavor<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:04 AM Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Iavor</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I’m broadly happy, but I would like us (and the proposers) to discuss the question of using a type family instead of a fundep. See my comment at
<a href="https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F158%23issuecomment-448520004&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C93e0092457d2468378cf08d675be71fd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636825858153743988&sdata=VvDRQjpINBfDlgwjWVyeokmJSIi3ZOdPvqXKW2gbtSs%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/158#issuecomment-448520004</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Simon</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee-bounces@haskell.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Iavor Diatchki<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 18 December 2018 18:02<br>
<b>To:</b> ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [ghc-steering-committee] Discussion for #158 "Add `setFild` to `HasField`"</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">let's start the discussion on proposal #158.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">After some discussion on the pull request the proposal was changed, so that instead of adding another method, it now proposes to remove the existing method `getField`, and add a new method
`hasField`, which allows to both access and change the value of a field. After the proposal the class would look like this<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">-- `x` is the name of the field, `r` is the type of the record, `a` is the type of the field<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">class HasField x r a | x r -> a where<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> hasField :: r -> (a -> r, a)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">In addition, we'd provide two functions `getField` and `setField` which are defined in terms of `hasField`. The proposal may break existing code, if it defines manual instances of `HasField`,
however, code that just uses the functionality will continue working as before. `HasField` is relatively new, and there aren't many reasons to define custom instances of it, so it is expected that breaking code would not be a big issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">This seems like a reasonably simple change, that adds new functionality, so I recommend that we accept the change.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:6.0pt">-Iavor <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>