[ghc-steering-committee] Quick look impredicativity (#274) — recommendation: accept

[Spiwack, Arnaud]

Sweet!

Should we, therefore, consider removing the contravariance discussion from
the quick look impredicativity proposal?

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:24 PM Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Any other opinion on deprecation of `-XContravariantFunctions`? I'd like
> this to be planned and to have a schedule. Maybe, as Simon suggested in the
> Github thread, this should be another discussion, though?
>
>
>
> I have produced a GHC Proposal
>
> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/287
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>
> *On Behalf Of *Spiwack, Arnaud
> *Sent:* 17 October 2019 08:05
> *To:* Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Quick look impredicativity (#274)
> — recommendation: accept
>
>
>
> Support seems unanimous so far. Unless someones voices a second opinion by
> then, I'll accept the proposal early next week.
>
>
>
> Any other opinion on deprecation of `-XContravariantFunctions`? I'd like
> this to be planned and to have a schedule. Maybe, as Simon suggested in the
> Github thread, this should be another discussion, though?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:45 PM Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I haven't had time to read through this proposal, but I am comfortable
> accepting it based on the recommendations of others.
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 5:52 PM Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
> >
> > I support acceptance too, modulo a few small comments that I left on the
> GH discussion.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, at 02:53, Spiwack, Arnaud wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > As the title implies: I'm hereby recommending accepting the Quick look
> > > impredicativity proposal.
> > >
> > > Summary:
> > >
> > > The proposal modifies the `-XImpredicativeTypes` extension with a well
> > > defined semantics which consists in considering n-ary applications,
> > > rather than binary. And look, in such an application, for arguments
> > > which absolutely require impredicative instantiation (either
> > > universally quantified type applications, or arguments where a
> > > universal type is guarded by an invariant type constructor).
> > >
> > > In order to have the expected behaviour for `($)` and `(.)`, the
> > > proposal also makes the left-hand argument of the arrow invariant with
> > > respect to instantiation (currently: contravariant). The proposal is to
> > > make this change effective, even if `-XRankNTypes` is turned on, but
> > > not `-XImpredicativeTypes`. The proposal also introduces an extension
> > > `-XContravariantFunctions` to restore the old behaviour, for
> > > compatibility.
> > >
> > > Rational:
> > >
> > > `-XImpredicativeTypes` is a useful extension which is currently in a
> > > rather sad state. I'm happy to see it stabilise to a clear semantics.
> > > The semantics in the proposal covers a ton of use cases. It strikes a
> > > very good balance between usefulness and predictability.
> > >
> > > The use of n-ary application in the type system also has good
> > > theoretical roots: sequent calculi have n-ary applications. (in
> > > manyrespects, bidirectional type systems are also about n-ary
> > > application). So I don't consider it a wart at all.
> > >
> > > The propsal's semantics, including the absence of contravariant
> > > functions, goes in the direction of _guessing less things_. This is a
> > > direction that many GHC features have taken lately. I think it's a very
> > > very good direction! Guessing can be damaging for predictability, but.
> > > more importantly, guessing has a tendency to compose badly with other
> > > typing features. (it is to be noted, too, that the implementation of
> > > contravariant functions. in GHC, eta-expands the function, which can
> > > casually change its semantics, if the function was bottom).
> > >
> > > So, everything in this proposal does look good to me, except that, I
> > > think, I would like a deprecation route for the
> > > `-XContravariantFunctions` extension. Otherwise, we will be stuck with
> > > legacy code forever.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Arnaud
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20191017/ebec24af/attachment.html>