[ghc-steering-committee] #370: Syntax for Modifiers, Recommendation: Acceptance

Thu Dec 10 09:29:11 UTC 2020

 Should we mark them as “accepted” with the following text?

The Committee accepts this proposal as experimental. This means that the
> Committee expects changes to this feature in the future, maybe as the
> result of other accepted proposals.
>

If you agree, then we can accept this proposal once a little remaining
issue with the grammar has been clarified.

Regards,
Alejandro

On 10 Dec 2020 at 09:59:02, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
wrote:

> That was the point of my previous email: accept, and
> accept-as-experimental are actually one and the same.
>
> Objectively, yes.  But I think it helps users to advertise a feature as
> experimental.  It’s a signal to users that this feature is, well,
> experimental.  It is more likely to change.
>
> It’s only an indication not a clear distinction.  But I find it helpful.
>
> For me, it also reflects how I evaluate the proposal.  For a change to a
> well-established feature, we have a lot of experience in how people use
> that feature.
>
> For experimental features we don’t.  Example: defaulting for matchability
> for unsaturated type families.  We don’t have unsaturated type families
> right now, so we don’t have any code that uses them, and hence zero
> in-the-wild experience about matchability defaulting.  We shouldn’t spend
> ages arguing the toss – just trust Csongor’s judgement and give it a try,
> but advertising that details may change.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
> *Sent:* 10 December 2020 08:06
> *To:* Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev>;
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org; Simon Peyton Jones <
> simonpj at microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #370: Syntax for Modifiers,
> Recommendation: Acceptance
>
>
>
> That was the point of my previous email: accept, and
> accept-as-experimental are actually one and the same.
>
>
>
> What Simon is driving at, I think, is: depending on what the proposal is
> about, we want to apply more or less strict standard of acceptance (if a
> proposal is about fixing something in an existing feature, then we better
> be rather sure that it is indeed an improvement; but if it's about adding
> something new in an untrodden territory, then we can't really be sure, and
> it's worth experimenting with).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:17 PM Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> As the shepherd of this proposal, I’m quite confused about what the
> outcome should be. The ghc-proposals README states that:
>
>
>
> Acceptance of the proposal implies that the implementation will be
> accepted into GHC provided it is well-engineered, well-documented, and does
> not complicate the code-base too much.
>
>
>
> Most of the Committee seems to lean towards “this seems OK right now, but
> we don’t want to be locked” or “mark this as experimental”. However,
> there’s no such notion as “accept as experimental”. Furthermore, as it
> stands the proposal gives some syntax, and then asks any new extensions to
> use that syntax; so it cannot be completely thought as a feature by itself.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
>
> On 9 Dec 2020 at 15:59:43, Spiwack, Arnaud <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
> wrote:
>
> It's always possible to change. I don't think accepting a proposal means
> (or ought to mean) that we are locked into anything. Accepting a proposal
> means that we won't oppose a design-related argument to a PR that
> implements (part or all of) an accepted proposal.
>
>
>
> I don't know how to quantify the degree of confidence that we have in the
> stability of a proposal. Here we are all saying: this is better than
> anything so far, and we rather need something like this to be a thing, but
> it's really a shot in the dark. And this lack of confidence will be
> reflected in the manual description. But even if we are confident in the
> stability of a proposal, it may very well happen that it changes
> dramatically, even soon.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:55 PM Simon Peyton Jones via
> ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org> wrote:
>
> I’ve replied on GitHub.  Generally in favour.  But mark it as
> experimental… I don’t want to be locked into “we decided on this in Dec
> 2020 so now it’s too late”.  WE can learn from experience.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>
> *On Behalf Of *Alejandro Serrano Mena
> *Sent:* 03 December 2020 20:17
> *To:* Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev>
> *Cc:* ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ghc-steering-committee] #370: Syntax for Modifiers,
> Recommendation: Acceptance
>
>
>
> Dear Committee,
>
>
>
> Richard has requested for us to consider the new version of this proposal.
> As opposed to the previous version, this one is only about reserving syntax
> for “modifiers”, which at the beginning would be used for things like
> linearity or matchability of arrows.
>
>
>
> I think this is a good proposal, and one which would save us from
> re-considering syntax for every possible extension (and if linearity
> appears before the arrow and matchability after it, where would a future
> dimension go?). Thus I keep recommending acceptance on this new incarnation.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2020 at 20:52:26, Richard Eisenberg <rae at richarde.dev> wrote:
>
> To my surprise, I found myself leaning against. So I updated and
> simplified the proposal to remove Modifier. This makes modifiers a bit more
> magical, but more likely to actually work in practice. The type inference
> story previously may have been intractable.
>
>
>
> I've requested that the committee consider the updates in parallel with
> community feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> After some discussion in the GitHub thread, changes are going to arrive to
> the proposal. I think the best is to send the proposal back to the “Needs
> revision” state.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro
>
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2020 at 23:12:44, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
>
> I left a few comments and questions on the PR itself, but I'm leaning
> towards rejecting the proposal in its current form as well. This doesn't
> (yet) feel like a generic mechanism, in particular because the only
> modifier that has been specified would be deeply wired into GHC itself.
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020, at 04:46, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.11.2020, 14:58 -0500 schrieb Alejandro Serrano
>
> Mena:
>
> > Dear all,
>
> > This proposal suggests adding syntax for a general notion of
>
> > modifiers, like the ones we’ve been talking about lately affecting
>
> > linearity or matchability of arrows. For example, if linear types and
>
> > unsaturated families are accepted as they stand, we would have `Int
>
> > #1 -> @U Bool` (or something like that), whereas with this proposal
>
> > we would have the more uniform `Int %1 %Unmatchable -> Bool`.
>
> >
>
> > Since the amount of modifiers is likely to increase in the future, I
>
> > think it’s a great idea to agree and reserve such syntax, instead of
>
> > coming up with different ways on each proposal. I thus recommend
>
> > acceptance of this proposal.
>
> >
>
> > The proposal itself:
>
> > (1) introduces syntax for modifiers in types and defines how to
>
> > type/kind check them,
>
> > (2) reserved such syntax for other uses in declarations and terms.
>
> >
>
> > I think the proposal still has its merits only with (1), even though
>
> > I lean towards accepting both parts of it.
>
>
>
> I like the idea of reserving syntax here, but parts of the proposal
>
> smell a bit like premature generalization to me. Are we confident that
>
> all annotations we eventually would like to use with this feature can
>
> be expressed as types of a kind that is an instance of Modifier? Or
>
> should we reserve the ability to have annotations that don't fit that
>
> model?
>
>
>
> Would we ever have annotation that may affect phases earlier than than
>
> typechecking? What if we want to use (%type e) and (%data e) to help
>
> with the SingleNamepace issues? Look like useful annotations to me, but
>
> I am not sure if they fit the framework proposed here.
>
>
>
> The fact that we special-case %1 supports that.
>
>
>
> The proposal explicitly has to state “No modifier polymorphism!”. But
>
> isn't that indication that using the type system to model the various
>
> modifiers might be the wrong tool?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is a way where the %(…) on it’s own only reserve
>
> syntax, and the various uses of that syntax can be disambiguated
>
> _statically_ based on the content of ….
>
>
>
> Not great syntax, because not concise, enough, but morally I’d feel
>
> more at ease with
>
>
>
>   Int %(multiplicity Many) -> Int
>
>   Int %(multiplicity 1) -> Int
>
>   Int %(multiplicity m) -> Int
>
>
>
> where multiplicity is a modifier keyword, to express the existing
>
> features (including implicit generalization of m). Then we can extend
>
> this to
>
>
>
>   Int %oneShot -> Int
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
>   Int %(matchability M) -> Int
>
>
>
> and maybe even
>
>
>
>   foo (%type [a]) -- where foo :: forall a -> ()
>
>
>
> which is a modifier that
>
>
>
>
>
> So at the moment, I am inclined to reject this proposal, until I am
>
> convinced that we are not painting ourselves into a “all modifiers are
>
> types of special kinds and that’s all the syntax and behaviour we ever
>
> need” corner.
>
>
>
> Minor detail: If we can annotate infix use of the (->) “type operator”,
>
> should we also be able to annotate other infix operators, i.e.
>
>
>
>   constr ::= (btype | ! atype) {modifier} conop (btype | ! atype)
>
>   infixexp ::= lexp {modifier} qop infixexp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joachim Breitner
>
>   mail at joachim-breitner.de
>
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joachim-breitner.de%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C97291bd458234e28f0aa08d89ce27f4f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637431843904133795%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EOafNT2JtRWPODqAKfG3TNH3xqPEe3%2B5ThuYLbjYPiY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C97291bd458234e28f0aa08d89ce27f4f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637431843904143751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=CSx3i0ZoLHVnh6rfNzv1qcJwMCXnRxM6iD%2FxYBRTJP8%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C97291bd458234e28f0aa08d89ce27f4f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637431843904143751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=CSx3i0ZoLHVnh6rfNzv1qcJwMCXnRxM6iD%2FxYBRTJP8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C97291bd458234e28f0aa08d89ce27f4f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637431843904153698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EEoElFpNjneP9rKR808eGaYKwaV66tLHiN0Tbra0GkA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.haskell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fghc-steering-committee&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C97291bd458234e28f0aa08d89ce27f4f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637431843904153698%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EEoElFpNjneP9rKR808eGaYKwaV66tLHiN0Tbra0GkA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20201210/85b8fb4b/attachment-0001.html>