<div dir="ltr">That seems reasonable to me.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:46 AM Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Friends<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Having consulted the authors, I propose that we do this:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span>Proceed with OverloadedRecordDot for 9.2, exactly as in the original proposal except for the extension name.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span>Record update will remain exactly as now, in 9.2; that is, drawing back from the original proposal.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span>There may be some
<i>code</i> in 9.2 that allows overloaded record update, protected by OverloadedRecordUpdate, but not in the user manual, and not treated as an accepted proposal. I don’t think we should ask the authors to remove it, and it will allow experimentation.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span>Adam is leading on a revised record-update proposal. This will cover<u></u><u></u></span></li><ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span>the tradeoffs between type-changing and non-type-changing update<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span>what the current record-update syntax stands for, and/or any new syntax<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Is that acceptable to everyone?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Simon<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 March 2021 17:51<br>
<b>To:</b> Iavor Diatchki <<a href="mailto:iavor.diatchki@gmail.com" target="_blank">iavor.diatchki@gmail.com</a>>; Spiwack, Arnaud <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Modification to record dot syntax propsal<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:36pt">
I don't buy the argument of "this is already accepted", as I don't think many of us had noticed that part of the proposal (I certainly didn't), and I think we should be flexible enough to revisit previous decisions when we notice problems with them.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I agree in principle that we can revisit decisions. But we have to be aware that it is potentially very discouraging for proposal authors to<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:2.7pt"><span>propose something,
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:2.7pt"><span>have it
<i>extensively</i> debated (including this very point), <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:2.7pt"><span>have it accepted,
<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="gmail-m_-2878793956363479091MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:2.7pt"><span>implement it,
<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>and then be told that the committee has changed its mind. That’s pretty bad from their point of view.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Still, Adam is working on a new SetField proposal, so perhaps that’s a figleaf. I’ll consult them.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><br>
Simon<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Iavor Diatchki <<a href="mailto:iavor.diatchki@gmail.com" target="_blank">iavor.diatchki@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 01 March 2021 17:23<br>
<b>To:</b> Spiwack, Arnaud <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com" target="_blank">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>>; ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Modification to record dot syntax propsal<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
Hello,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
I think there is a strong motivation to *at least* split the extensions: with the current design, enabling the special `.` notation also *disables* type changing record update, which has nothing to do with the `.` notation.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
My preference would be to:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
1. Split the original proposal into two parts: one about `.` notation, the other about record update (as suggested by this proposal)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
2. Treat the `.` notation part as accepted<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
3. Require changes on the record update part, so that you don't have to choose between it and type changing record updates, which are quite useful, and I don't think we should aim for a Haskell without them.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
I don't buy the argument of "this is already accepted", as I don't think many of us had noticed that part of the proposal (I certainly didn't), and I think we should be flexible enough to revisit previous decisions when we notice problems with them.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
-Iavor<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 1:40 AM Spiwack, Arnaud <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
Simon, all,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
After reading more of the PR thread (in particular the fews posts after Simon's recommendation), I have to admit: I am thoroughly confused. I'm not sure that two people in that thread have the same motivation, end goal, or design in mind.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
The motivations provided by the modified <i>Alternatives</i> section is not much more helpful (at the risk of caricaturing a little, it basically reads: “we made two extensions rather than one because we can”). Though it makes it clear that the end goal is
to fold a bunch of record-related extensions into one glorious record extension (well, probably not fold them, but make a meta-extension that implies all the extensions that we've decided we like).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
My starting point is that:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
- Additional extensions have a maintenance cost<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
- Additional extensions impose a cognitive burden on their use<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
- I expect that a new extension will break my code in the next few releases.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
Based on this, I don't care how this extension or the glorious record extension are named; but if we want to have two extensions we should have a serious reason. Right now, the one reason that I see (and Iavor raised), is that the update part of `RecordDotSyntax`
is not backward compatible. Is it a strong enough reason? I don't know. The only data point that I can provide is that when we discussed the original proposal, I brought it up several times, and it didn't seem very important at the time (the conversation focused
on other points of the proposal).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
So, I'm still reluctant. I feel that, at the very least, the motivations are not well-enough articulated in the proposal (I'll make a comment to this effect on Github when I'm done composing this email).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
I appreciate that I'm in the minority here. Yet, I'm still unconvinced.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
Best,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
Arnaud<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
<u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:0cm">
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 12:39 AM Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simonpj@microsoft.com" target="_blank">simonpj@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;margin-left:36pt">
Generally, I'm not in favour in proposals which split extensions though: we already have so many extensions. Are the reasons for this split strong enough? I haven't had time to dig into the details.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Arnaud, happily, you don’t have to dig very deep – just read the handful of posts following my recommendation.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There seem to be two motivations.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">
There really are two orthogonal extensions, one for r.x notation, and one for overloaded update. Iavor likes the first but not the second. Neil likes both. Having separate extensions lets us experiment.<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<ol start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">
You suggest that changing the definition of RecordDotSyntax in a subsequent release, e.g. by subsequently making it imply NoFieldSelectors, would be fine. But it certainly imposes pain – some programs would stop compiling. The approach offered by this proposal
avoids that problem.<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, there are lots of extensions surrounding records: NoFieldSelectors, DuplicateRecordFields, NamedFieldPuns, DisambiguateRecordFields, RecordWildCards. It may not be pretty
to divide things up so fine, but it’s not new.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If there are alternative suggestions, let’s hear them.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Simon<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-top:none currentcolor;border-right:none currentcolor;border-bottom:none currentcolor;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none currentcolor;border-bottom:none currentcolor;border-left:none currentcolor;border-top:1pt solid currentcolor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>Spiwack, Arnaud<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 26 February 2021 22:33<br>
<b>To:</b> Iavor Diatchki <<a href="mailto:iavor.diatchki@gmail.com" target="_blank">iavor.diatchki@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ghc-steering-committee <<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Modification to record dot syntax propsal</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none currentcolor;border-right:none currentcolor;border-bottom:none currentcolor;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">I do think that reusing the record update syntax for the overloaded monomorphic update is a mistake---it is not something I had noticed during our original discussion.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">This is the one reason I can see for cutting this extension in smaller pieces. But, then again, -XOverloadedRecordUpdate would be a fork-like extension.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">Generally, I'm not in favour in proposals which split extensions though: we already have so many extensions. Are the reasons for this split strong enough? I haven't had time to dig into
the details.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">I'm not sure that not having the design of the proposal quite finalised is a good reason, extensions mutate in their first iterations, I don't think that it's a problem.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br>
</blockquote></div>