<div dir="ltr"><div>Let's do a quick vote. All, which do you prefer?</div><div><br></div><div>A. Introduce the breakage immediately and change the argument order of setField (current state of the proposal)</div><div>B. Introduce a new extension -XOverloadedRecordUpdateNew which would use a setField with a different argument order, so that it can be used during the transition period. Eventually OverloadedRecordUpdateNew becomes deprecated and OverloadedRecordUpdate swaps the argument order. (Moritz's proposal)</div><div>C. Keep the originally proposed setField argument order (nobody have suggested this yet, but I'm including it for completeness)<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 10:33, Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Sure.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Just to be clear, I'm not trying to set a precedent here!</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Simon<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 09:26, Moritz Angermann <<a href="mailto:moritz.angermann@gmail.com" target="_blank">moritz.angermann@gmail.com</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 dir="auto">I’m not going to stay in the way of this proposal. I’hope it’s understandable if I recuse myself. </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 4:18 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">We have to balance the cost of mitigation against the cost of breakage.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><ul style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><li style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Cost of breakage. Adam has identified only two packages that woud, both of which can adapt promptly. It's true that there is more code out there, but the absence on Hackage is strongly indicative that there is unlikely to be much.</li><li style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Cost of mitigation. Supporting both behaviours, having extra language flags, that must in turn themselves be deprecated away, are real costs. The suck effort away from more productive activity.</li><li style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">I completely agree that if we had a classification, OverloadedRecordUpdate would have been classified as Experimental, and we would not be discussing deprecation cycles. And signalling what is experimental and what is stable is a <i style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">primary </i>goal of the stability conversation we are having. I agree strongly with Moritz on this point.<br></li><li style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">However the user manual (<a href="https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/overloaded_record_update.html?highlight=overloaded%20record#overloaded-record-update" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" target="_blank">Section 6.5.11</a>) says "<strong style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">EXPERIMENTAL</strong>
<em style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">This design of this extension may well change in the future. It
would be inadvisable to start using this extension for long-lived
libraries just yet</em>". Short of an official classification mechanism, which we don't have yet, it seems hard to imagine a clearer statement than that.</li></ul><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">My judgement: in this case we should forge ahead without introducing OverloadedRecordNew and supporting both behaviours. (I have not even begun to think about how hard that would be to implement.) Let's spend our precious cycles elsewhere.</div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Simon<br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 08:48, Moritz Angermann <<a href="mailto:moritz.angermann@gmail.com" target="_blank">moritz.angermann@gmail.com</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 dir="ltr">Arnaud,<div><br></div><div>That is a good argument. Without an opt-in to the new syntax, they can't adapt. I guess this brings us to the extension lifecycle. A solution could be</div><div>1. Deprecate OverloadedRecordUpdate in favour of OverloadedRecordUpdateNew. The user can adapt their code and use a different Extension.<br></div><div>2. Eventually Have OverloadedRecordUpdateNew be a synonym for changed OverloadedRecordUpdate. And Deprecate OverloadedRecordUpdateNew</div><div> over a longer period of time.</div><div><br></div><div>I think this actually shows the value a `--std=experimental` could have. If `OverloadedRecordUpdate` was behind `--std=experimental` breaking it would</div><div>be permissible by design. And we would not have this discussion, and Adam would not need to try to find all the potential breaking codes. This is part</div><div>of the proposal to make `--std=experimental` a thing, allow fast(er) paced iteration on the experimental side of the compiler, while being extremely</div><div>explicit about it being experimental features that can break at any time and without warning.</div><div><br></div><div>The deprecation process outlined above would be fore non-experimental features. They can still be changed, but with a more rigorous change evolution.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this helps to clarify my position?</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div> Moritz</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 15:31, Arnaud Spiwack <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</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 dir="ltr"><div>@Moritz: very clear thank you, though I'd like to understand how one could adapt during the transition period to an argument swap, would you say? Secondary question: if they can't adapt, isn't there a risk of making the breakage more painful by delaying it, and letting more people use -XOverloadedRecordUpdate with the argument order which isn't the final one?<br></div><div><br></div><div>@Adam: we have to recognise that Hackage is not all the Haskell code. I expect Hackage to be a little more conservative in extensions than end-user applications. As such we're not guaranteed an absence of breakage (it's still probably quite small, but it's hard to quantify).<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 09:21, Adam Gundry <<a href="mailto:adam@well-typed.com" target="_blank">adam@well-typed.com</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">The backwards compatibility impact here is really extremely small, <br>
because OverloadedRecordUpdate is essentially unusable at present (as <br>
well as being explicitly documented as subject to change), so nobody <br>
uses it. While someone could implement a warning when the extension is <br>
turned on to say that it will change in the future, I'm not sure I see <br>
much point.<br>
<br>
I used <a href="https://hackage-search.serokell.io/?q=OverloadedRecordUpdate" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://hackage-search.serokell.io/?q=OverloadedRecordUpdate</a> to <br>
look for occurrences of OverloadedRecordUpdate on Hackage, and I found <br>
precisely one pair of packages using it "for real":<br>
<br>
large-anon-0.3.0<br>
large-records-0.4<br>
<br>
These packages were created by my colleague Edsko in discussion with me, <br>
and will need to be amended when the proposal is implemented, because <br>
they want to take advantage of the new functionality.<br>
<br>
The other packages on Hackage containing the string <br>
OverloadedRecordUpdate are tools that reference all extensions:<br>
<br>
Cabal-syntax-3.10.1.0<br>
extensions-0.1.0.0<br>
fourmolu-0.14.0.0<br>
ghc-9.6.3<br>
ghc-boot-th-9.6.3<br>
ghc-exactprint-1.7.0.1<br>
ghc-hs-meta-0.1.2.0<br>
ghc-lib-9.6.2.20230523<br>
ghc-lib-parser-9.6.2.20230523<br>
hackport-0.8.4.0<br>
haskell-src-meta-0.8.12<br>
hindent-6.1.0<br>
hlint-3.6.1<br>
ormolu-0.7.2.0<br>
<br>
plus there are a few references in comments:<br>
<br>
lifx-lan-0.8.2<br>
optics-core-0.4.1.1<br>
pvector-0.1.1<br>
record-dot-preprocessor-0.2.16<br>
tztime-0.1.1.0<br>
<br>
While I generally agree with the "don't abruptly break existing code" <br>
position, in this case I don't think there is code out there to break.<br>
<br>
Adam<br>
<br>
<br>
On 03/10/2023 01:14, Moritz Angermann wrote:<br>
> Arnaud,<br>
> <br>
> thank you for your write up. And sorry that my view seems to be not <br>
> clear. Let me try to explain.<br>
> My position is: I'm against anything that _abruptly_ breaks existing <br>
> code. That's basically all there is to it.<br>
> Therefore I'm strongly against breaking changes without an appropriate <br>
> warning period (from the compiler).<br>
> I also strongly believe that most people do not read documentation, and <br>
> the authoritative messages are<br>
> the ones the compiler produces. As I've alluded to in a different email, <br>
> there are lots of people who work<br>
> on software as a 9-5 job, and don't spend their freetime tinkering and <br>
> playing with languages. They just<br>
> want to get the job done they are assigned. I have a lot of respect for <br>
> them. In my experience they don't<br>
> read compiler release announcements, or even go and read the compiler <br>
> documentation. They are given<br>
> the compiler version the company decided on for use in production. <br>
> That's the tool they use. And that tool<br>
> in my opinion needs to be rock solid, and not break easily across <br>
> versions. Thus yes, I would very much<br>
> like to see us not have breaking changes at all, but I can see that we <br>
> may need breaking changes<br>
> occasionally. In those cases I want it to be very visible to the <br>
> consumers that this breaking change is<br>
> coming towards them (compiler warnings). Giving them some time to adjust <br>
> (migration period), until the<br>
> breaking change happens. Ultimately we should be able to compiler <br>
> existing code that compiles today<br>
> with at least the next compiler without it rejecting the code or needing <br>
> modifications to the code (-Werror<br>
> excluded).<br>
> <br>
> Thus what I'm arguing for is:<br>
> - Let's implement this backwards compatibility.<br>
> - Add compiler warnings about the arguments being swapped in a future <br>
> GHC version. For _a least_ one major release.<br>
> - Make the breaking change in a subsequent release.<br>
> <br>
> Alternatively I could also see:<br>
> - Adding compiler warnings now that the arguments will be swapped in a <br>
> future GHC version (for at least one major release).<br>
> - Implement the breaking change in a subsequent release.<br>
> <br>
> Either of those would be ok with me. Implementing a breaking change from <br>
> one version to the next, without an<br>
> appropriate deprecation/migration period (that is, the compiler will <br>
> warn loudly that changes are coming) is something<br>
> I am _very_ vehemently against.<br>
> <br>
> If the migration/deprecation warnings would provide a link to a GitHub <br>
> ticket or something where more information<br>
> can be found and maybe even a discussion could be had would probably <br>
> also be a good idea.<br>
> <br>
> I hope this helps clarify my position? If not, feel free to ask more, <br>
> I'm also happy to jump onto a call to explain my<br>
> position if needed.<br>
> <br>
> Best,<br>
> Moritz<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 23:31, Arnaud Spiwack <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Sorry I took a little bit of time to react to this, it was a lot to<br>
> take in and I didn't have the mental space last week.<br>
> <br>
> The only person that may have spoken against the current state of<br>
> the proposal is Moritz. Yet I realise that I don't actually know,<br>
> Moritz, what your position is.<br>
> <br>
> To recap: to use -XOverloadedRecordUpdate in current GHC, you need<br>
> to use -XRebindableSyntax and provide a setField function. In the<br>
> new proposal you can use -XOverloadedRecordUpdate without<br>
> -XRebindableSyntax, but when -XRebindableSyntax is on, the setField<br>
> function that you have to provide has its argument swapped. The<br>
> current documentation of OverloadedRecordUpdate has the following<br>
> text at the top “*EXPERIMENTAL* /This design of this extension may<br>
> well change in the future. It would be inadvisable to start using<br>
> this extension for long-lived libraries just yet./”.<br>
> <br>
> Now, I don't quite see how we could have a transition period that<br>
> would allow a smooth transition there. There is no piece of code,<br>
> with RebindableSyntax, that would compile before and after the<br>
> change. So unless I'm missing something the position we can take as<br>
> a committee can be either<br>
> - Let's have the breakage without a transition period<br>
> - Let's not make the breaking change ever and use the earlier<br>
> argument order for set<br>
> <br>
> Which one do you argue for, or am I missing another option?<br>
> <br>
> On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 15:36, Eric Seidel <<a href="mailto:eric@seidel.io" target="_blank">eric@seidel.io</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:eric@seidel.io" target="_blank">eric@seidel.io</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I am in favor of this proposal.<br>
> <br>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, at 03:37, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:<br>
> > Dear all.<br>
> ><br>
> > I submitted my recommendation 3 weeks ago, and only Simon has<br>
> commented<br>
> > yet. Please let me know your thoughts.<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 16:27, Arnaud Spiwack<br>
> <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >> Dear all,<br>
> >><br>
> >> Don't forget to opine here. To reiterate, I really don't<br>
> expect the proposal to be controversial. The text of the<br>
> proposal is rather long, but is made easy to read. So it<br>
> shouldn't take too much of your time.<br>
> >><br>
> >> /Arnaud<br>
> >><br>
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 01:03, Simon Peyton Jones<br>
> <<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com" target="_blank">simon.peytonjones@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>> I support acceptance.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Simon<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:09, Arnaud Spiwack<br>
> <<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io" target="_blank">arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>> Dear all,<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> [ Proposal #583<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/583" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/583</a><br>
> <<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/583" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/583</a>> ]<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Our own Adam proposes to amend the design of the highly<br>
> experimental OverloadedRecordUpdate extension as had been<br>
> designed in proposal #158 [<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0158-record-set-field.rst" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0158-record-set-field.rst</a> <<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0158-record-set-field.rst" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0158-record-set-field.rst</a>> ] and #405 [ <a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/405" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/405</a> <<a href="https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/405" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/405</a>> ].<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Specifically, Adam proposes a modification of the type<br>
> classes that would back the extension.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> In the previous design the HasField class is defined as a<br>
> lens:<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> class HasField (n :: k) r a | r n -> a<br>
> >>>> hasField :: r -> (a -> r, a)<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> The proposal is to replace it by two classes (slightly<br>
> simplified)<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> class HasField (n :: k) r a | r n -> a<br>
> >>>> hasField :: r -> a<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> class SetField (n::k) r a | r n -> a<br>
> >>>> modifyField :: (a -> a) -> r -> a<br>
> >>>> setField :: a -> r -> a<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> This is originally motivated by some performance<br>
> consideration: the prototype implementation of HasField as a<br>
> lens can be very time consuming because instances of HasFields<br>
> are generated eagerly at record definition sites, whereas the<br>
> simple HasField instances can simply reuse the selectors already<br>
> generated by GHC. But a lot of thoughts have been put into the<br>
> new design, and my summary can certainly not do it justice: the<br>
> proposal is very well argumented.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> A point I'll make here is that the new design is actually<br>
> parametric in the data representation of the field type.<br>
> Something that wasn't possible in the original design.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> This proposal is not technically backward compatible,<br>
> because the order of argument in which OverloadedRecordUpdate<br>
> expects the argument of setField is changed. This is not<br>
> essential to the proposal, but this is a more consistent order<br>
> argument with the rest of Haskell. And considering that<br>
> OverloadedRecordUpdate is very loudly advertised as<br>
> experimental, I recommend accepting this breakage.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Overall the proposal is actually more backward compatible<br>
> with GHC 9.8 than the original design, as the HasField class is<br>
> left unchanged.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Overall, the proposal looks quite reasonable to me, and<br>
> well-argued. I recommend acceptance.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant<br>
Well-Typed LLP, <a href="https://www.well-typed.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.well-typed.com/</a><br>
<br>
Registered in England & Wales, OC335890<br>
<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/27+Old+Gloucester+Street,+London+WC1N+3AX,+England?entry=gmail&source=g" target="_blank">27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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><br clear="all"><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Arnaud Spiwack<br>Director, Research at <a href="https://moduscreate.com" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://moduscreate.com</a> and <a href="https://tweag.io" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tweag.io</a>.</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>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Arnaud Spiwack<br>Director, Research at <a href="https://moduscreate.com" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://moduscreate.com</a> and <a href="https://tweag.io" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tweag.io</a>.</div></div>