[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Embrace Type in Type
Richard Eisenberg
rae at cs.brynmawr.edu
Mon Apr 16 15:55:22 UTC 2018
I'd like to get this conversation going again so that we can have some closure here.
To remind everyone: this is about proposal #83, where -XTypeInType is folded into -XPolyKinds and -XDataKinds. The only point of contention (both on GitHub and here in committee) is what to do about *.
The proposal currently describes a mechanism, -XStarIsType, for how to deal with this. Briefly, when the extension is on (as it is by default), * means Type. When it's off, * is parsed as a normal binary infix operator. That mechanism has not gotten rave reviews in this thread, but no alternative has, either.
One slightly separate question is what to print. The proposal currently suggests to print Type. There was concern in this thread that it would be printed fully-qualified, but I like Joachim's suggestion in the last known email in this thread to special-case printing of Type; even if it's not imported, it would print as Type, not Data.Kind.Type. (Unless some other Type were in scope.) It is also easy to teach GHC to print a bespoke warning when a user writes Type when it is out of scope, telling them to import Data.Kind.
An alternative that hasn't been suggested so far is to have -XStarIsType control the pretty-printer as well as the parser. Simon PJ and I discussed this this morning, thinking it was a good idea. Upon further consideration, my preference would be to bite the bullet and just switch to printing Type always, but I'm not really against the print-*-with-XStarIsType idea.
Regardless, it would be nice to have this settled so we can get on with implementing.
Thanks!
Richard
> On Feb 21, 2018, at 12:52 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> here is another variant of 2
>
> 2a. Import a module Data.Type to bring Type into scope using the
> normal module scoping mechanism.
> But: In error messages, unless some other Type is in scope, write
> “Type”
>
> Advantage: good error messages for most
> Disadvantage: an extra import; a small special-casing in error
> messages.
>
> Cheers,
> Joachim
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 21.02.2018, 17:28 +0000 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
>> From the GitHub discussions and the e-mails, I've seen a couple of other options being proposed/discussed:
>>
>> * Use a unicode star operator.
>> - Pros: short, looks like the current star, much less likely to clash with stuff.
>> - Cons: typing a unicode symbol in some editors could be a pain.
>>
>> * Continue using `*` (or another infix operator), but require that it be written in prefix notation, i.e. write `(*)` instead of `*`.
>> - Pros: less of a wart, follows normal language rules
>> - Cons: it is odd to use an infix operator that is not binary (i.e., can't be written infix); still uses up the `*` name
>>
>> * Continue using `*` but---at the type level---have it always refer to the kind, when used unqualified. This is what is called `StartIsKind` in the proposal.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:59 AM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> The issue about ‘*’ seems to be this
>>>
>>> We need a way to write down the kind of types. E.g. Int :: ???
>>> What is the “???”
>>>
>>> · There are several possibilities
>>> 1. Continue to use * as built in syntax. It’s a massive wart; you can’t write (*->*) because GHC thinks that’s a single lexeme; and * is a terrifically useful infix operator, so stealing it is horrible. I’m sure we would never do this today.
>>> 2. Import a module Data.Type to bring Type into scope using the normal module scoping mechanism.
>>> Advantage: no new special things
>>> Disadvantage: an extra import; and error messages might say Data.Type.Type fully qualified if you didn’t have the import.
>>> 3. Same, but export Type from Prelude.
>>> Advantage: no need for that special import
>>> Disadvantage: would break existing programs that define Type, and import Prelude, regardless of flags.
>>> I suppose we could say that you only get Type from Prelude if -XTypeInType is also on, but that IS new (and ad hoc) mechanism.
>>> 4. Define Type as a new keyword (with TypeInType). It does not need to be imported; it cannot be overridden or redefined. (Just like (->).)
>>> A variant of this (which I quite like) is to use the existing keyword type (lowercase).
>>> Advantage: simple clear story
>>> Note: won’t break existing code; only code that says TypeInType
>>> Is that a fair summary of the design space?
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Iavor Diatchki [mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 17:47
>>> To: Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
>>> Cc: Richard Eisenberg <rae at cs.brynmawr.edu>; ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org; Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Embrace Type in Type
>>>
>>> The issue I see is that it is quite common to get a kind error without doing any fancy type level programming---in particular without writing kind signatures or anything like that. So you'd have no reason to import `Data.Kind(Type)`. The result would be that GHC would give quite a verbose error message, using the fully qualified name of `Type`. Unless we did something special.
>>>
>>> -Iavor
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:41 AM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> I’m not sure I see the problem here. If ‘Int’ is not in scope then
>>>> f :: Int -> Int
>>>> won’t work. What’s different about ‘Type’
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> From: ghc-steering-committee [mailto:ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
>>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 04:26
>>>> To: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org; Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Embrace Type in Type
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Iavor, for bringing this up.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify the proposal: -XStarIsType is orthogonal to deprecation. The extension is necessary in order to continue to parse existing programs, but if we choose to deprecate *, then we would deprecate even with -XStarIsType is enabled (precisely to avoid the half-deprecation scenario Iavor is worried about).
>>>>
>>>> I envisioned always printing Type unqualified in error messages, even if it's not imported. If a user writes Type and it's out of scope, we could always have a special-case check suggesting they import Data.Kind. I won't argue this is a principled design, though, and is likely a poor choice if some other Type is in scope.
>>>>
>>>> The truth is that I don't have a great way forward here (and haven't for years) and am very hopeful someone on this list can come up with one! :) The proposal has my best idea, but I'm still not thrilled with it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't see any discussion about the third part of this proposal, namely the addition of a new extension called `StarIsKind`. The idea is that when this is on, `*` will still be treated as a special alpha-numeric name, and it will *always* refer to the kind of inhabited types (i.e., same as know). The difference is that it cannot be used as another type-level operator (e.g., for multiplication).
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably, when this extension is on, there would be no deprecation warning emitted for `*`? We should clarify this in the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not certain if this is a good idea. It makes the use of `*` sort of "half" deprecated, and leaves us with multiple "standard" ways to refer to the same thing (e.g., in type errors). Also, if we want people to update their code to use `Type` instead of `*`, then we are just delaying the pain point to whenever `StarIsKind` ends up being not on by default.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, if we don't have a standard short-hand way to refer to the kind of inhabited types, I imagine GHC will report some very ugly errors. For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> • Expecting one more argument to ‘Maybe’
>>>>> Expected a type, but ‘Maybe’ has kind ‘Data.Kind.Type -> Data.Kind.Type’
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is for a fairly simple kind error, they get much longer if, say, monad transformers are involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do others think?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Iavor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:24 PM Richard Eisenberg <rae at cs.brynmawr.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In particular in light of our use of “type” as a explicit namespace
>>>>>>> token – so far in export and import lists and fixity declarations – I
>>>>>>> worry that we will prevent ourselves from using more such explicit
>>>>>>> namespace things in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a really good point. In private musings, I've often wondered about using the keyword `type` in expressions to denote a namespace change. More concretely, I'm worried about the Dreaded Namespace Problem (DNP): that is, a dependently typed language does not want to have separate type-level and term-level namespaces. Of course, Haskell has this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best solution I have so far to the DNP is to introduce a *new* namespace, distinct from the two namespaces we have so far. Let's call it the "default" namespace. When -XDependentTypes is on, the default namespace is in effect. Name lookup looks first in the default namespace. If that fails the namespace consulted next depends on context: the "data" namespace in terms and the "type" namespace in type signatures. (This last bit needs to be specified more concretely, but you get the idea.) Or, perhaps, a failed lookup in the default namespace will look up in both the type and data namespaces, erroring if a name appears in both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a user wants to specify a namespace directly, they have a very easy way to do so: `type Foo` will look in the type namespace, `data Foo` will look in the data namespace, and `default Foo` will look in the default namespace. :) Because these keywords make sense currently only at the beginning of a line, this Just Works. I also imagined these constructs could scope over a subexpression: `type (T S)`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of this deserves a proper proposal and it's too early for that proposal. Nevertheless, I'm grateful that Joachim said something here, given that adding `type` as a spelling of `Type` would invalidate this approach. I also am swayed by the fact that `Type` isn't fully primitive, and making a keyword mean something that's not primitive is a bit awkward. I thus retract this proposed alternative and will update the proposal accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>>>>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>>>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> --
> Joachim Breitner
> mail at joachim-breitner.de
> http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
More information about the ghc-steering-committee
mailing list