[ghc-steering-committee] Is @ a name-space override, or a visibility override?

[Richard Eisenberg]

Yes -- apologies for not posting to this list last night, but I was eager to get my proposal out the door while it was topical... and then eager to get to bed once it had. That proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/378) is, in a sense, a generalization of this thread (thanks, Arnaud for starting it).

To Iavor's email: I think the design you describe makes good sense, but only for a language without dependent types. A language with dependent types could be imagined with "languages above" and "languages below", but I think the "above"/"below" switching would introduce friction with little self-sustaining benefit. By "self-sustaining" there, I mean that a dependently typed language often has no need for different languages above or below, and so making that distinction in a dependently typed language is awkward. However, one could imagine a dependently typed Haskell that retains the distinction, essentially for philosophical backward compatibility. ("Philosophical" because I believe we can design dependent types in Haskell to be fully backward compatible, but it might require a new way of thinking about what phrases in the language mean.)

Perhaps even more directly, avoiding a distinction between languages above/below is a key component of what I require in an ergonomic interpretation of dependent types. Keeping the distinction would, unless I'm convinced otherwise, appear un-ergonomic.

Richard

> On Nov 14, 2020, at 7:21 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena <trupill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This might be relevant to this discussion. Richard Eisenberg has opened a proposal to give a “general steering” towards Dependent Haskell, or not.
> - Proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/378 <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/378>
> - Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/jtvf06/should_ghc_support_ergonomic_dependent_types/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/jtvf06/should_ghc_support_ergonomic_dependent_types/>
> 
> I think it’s also a place where we all should express our opinion.
> 
> Alejandro
> 
> On 13 Nov 2020 at 16:51:58, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com <mailto:iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee <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/20201114/0b5f521f/attachment.html>