Pre-Proposal: Introspective Template Haskell
eir at cis.upenn.edu
Wed Nov 11 17:50:36 UTC 2015
On Nov 11, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
> I think backwards-compatibility is still a potential issue, not because
> the pattern/type synonym layer seems implausible, but because I suspect
> people will begin to sidestep the compatibility layer and just use the
> GHC API (I certainly would). GHC is not shy about breaking
> backwards-compatibility between major releases, so it seems possible
> that this could extend to breaking TH. Missing features is not nearly as
> bad as breaking most clients of TH.
This is a very good point. We would want to bless some API that would remain stable. Then, clients that go around that API get what they deserve. A starting point for the stable API would be today's template-haskell (less some unsafe features, like exposing NameG).
> But perhaps this isn't a very likely scenario. TH mostly exports
> datatypes for haskell syntax, smart constructors, and a few functions
> for looking up metadata. I doubt these pieces of GHC change very often,
> and when they do it's probably an extension rather than a breaking
> change. Someone with more historical knowledge of GHC could comment :)
I actually think this *is* a likely scenario. In the last revision of GHC, lots of AST changes have taken place. We would want to insulate TH users from this.
> All in all, I like this idea a lot!
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015, at 08:26, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>> There's a bunch of open tickets around Template Haskell. A great many of
>> them are attempts to make TH more like what's already in GHC. Of course,
>> when someone improves GHC, then TH also has to be updated. But this
>> doesn't always happen, leading to several of these tickets.
>> I believe I have a solution to the problem: just eliminate Template
>> Haskell and provide direct access to GHC's internal structures. The idea
>> (still very sketchy; hence pre-proposal) is like this (numbered for easy
>> reference, but no order is implied):
>> 1. TH quotes would remain. DsMeta would desugar quotes into Core code
>> that produces HsExprs. For example, [| 1 |] would have type (Q (LHsExpr
>> Name)). (Or perhaps (Q (LHsExpr RdrName)) if that works out better for
>> 2. TH splices would remain, working much as they do now. The expression
>> inside, say, an expression splice would have type (Q exp) where we can
>> satisfy the constraint (SpliceExpr exp). There would be instances for
>> (SpliceExpr (LHsExpr Name)) and (SpliceExpr (LHsExpr RdrName)) as well as
>> the non-located variants. Generalizing the type of expressions here
>> allows users not to worry about un-renaming when roundtripping between
>> quotes and splices.
>> 3. Reification would remain, using an Info structure much like we have
>> now. Would we expose the real GHC TyCons as the result of reification? Or
>> is it better to give the users HsDecls? This would need to be fleshed
>> 4. Lifting would remain, doing the obvious thing.
>> 5. The template-haskell package could even remain, as a
>> backward-compatibility shim. It would declare gobs of pattern synonyms
>> and type synonyms to wrap the new underlying interface. This re-imagined
>> template-haskell package would not need to be a boot library, and could
>> be upgraded separately from GHC. We could even maintain multiple versions
>> of the library so that TH clients wouldn't have to change their code when
>> GHC upgrades. Perhaps someday we could think about deprecating, if that's
>> the way the wind blows.
>> So, the end result is a completely re-engineered TH, but I believe we
>> could keep full backward compatibility. (I have not considered Typed TH
>> in any depth yet. But my hope is that it's not too different from the
>> above.) And, we're left with a significantly lower maintenance burden,
>> especially if we eliminate template-haskell someday.
>> And, tantalizingly, the flexibility in splices might allow us to splice
>> in *Core* code someday. Perhaps we could also reify Core code. Then
>> clients could write their own custom, domain-aware optimizations. Like
>> RULES on steroids. But that's all for the next phase. (Giving due credit,
>> this last bit is inspired by work David Christiansen is doing in Idris.)
>> What's wrong with this idea? I feel like *something* has to be more
>> complicated than I've made it seem!
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
More information about the ghc-devs