[ghc-steering-committee] Language Extension Policy – Round 1

Mon Mar 6 08:37:43 UTC 2023

Dear all,

I waited a bit before answering this thread, as I got quite surprised by
the replies.

First, the categorisation was meant as purely descriptive, and to provide
us with terminology to speak about policy. In retrospect, the fact that I
didn't manage to find a good name for category (1) and that I resorted to
name it after something the extensions might be for should have been a tell
that the conversation was not going to go as planned (also I'm slowly
realising that “experimental” may not really be a category in that sense,
and probably helped getting the conversation confused). Let me add that, in
my opinion, it would be quite premature to actually try and categorise or
grade extensions now, before we have a policy.

Honestly, I think that it's going to be difficult to salvage this approach,
given that there are almost as many different positions on this than
respondents. That being said, I believe that we need some common
terminology or at least a common framework to even start to discuss policy
more deeply, but far from converging, we seem to be diverging as the
conversation progresses.

Maybe the takeaway from this conversation is that it's difficult, at least
at this stage, to find relevant axes on which to classify what extensions
are, so maybe, we ought to be building our terminology on what extensions
are for. Which we could build on the basis of Adam's user-stories. I'll
come up with a new proposal later this week.

/Arnaud

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 14:38, Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev> wrote:

> Yes, I think eliminating "obvious" extensions from the need for fine
> scoring is a good idea. Maybe we start by figuring out which these should
> be? I bet we'll kill off about half of what we have, which is a nice
> savings.
>
> Richard
>
> On Feb 28, 2023, at 11:30 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <
> simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Shall we start with the three columns I described, and the non-scoring
> enumerations I suggest, and see where we go?  If it's inadequate we can
> elaborate.  But let's not start with too many categories etc.
>
> S
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 14:45, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We definitely *could* assign every extension a 1-5 score on 6+ different
>> axes, but I have to admit the thought of actually doing this gives me a
>> sinking feeling! Furthermore I'm not sure what we would do with the
>> results. How do we use the scores to decide what goes into GHC20xx? It
>> feels like we're creating a great deal of work for ourselves.
>>
>> The idea of categorising rather than scoring is to shortcut the
>> discussion. If we know that some extension is experimental (e.g.
>> LinearTypes), it just goes in the experimental category and we don't need
>> to think about it any more. If we have an extension that is enabling a
>> deprecated feature, again we don't need to consider any other aspects.
>>
>> So, perhaps these axes are useful for extensions that are candidates for
>> GHC20xx and not in one of the other categories 2-5 in Arnaud's list. But if
>> we're going to reject extensions from GHC20xx for reasons that are *not*
>> covered by categories 2-5 in Arnaud's list, then we should think about what
>> those reasons might be. Is "breaks too many programs" one of them?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 18:04, Richard Eisenberg <lists at richarde.dev>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Arnaud!
>>>
>>> > Q1: Are all the categories 1–5 relevant? If you would like to remove
>>> >        some categories, which and why (free form)?
>>>
>>> I'm not really sure I understand Category 1. In particular, I think my
>>> initial categorization didn't have Arnaud's Category 1, but instead had
>>>
>>> 8. Extensions that enable only new programs, without changing the
>>> semantics of any existing program
>>>
>>> This was meant as a counterpoint to 6.
>>>
>>> But my initial categorization was non-orthogonal: for example, this
>>> Category 8 overlaps with several other categories. In that way, Joachim's
>>> argument that we could imagine two axes of categorization -- one technical,
>>> one policy-oriented -- is intriguing. For example, -XDatatypeContexts
>>> belongs in Category 8 (it's a syntactic extension), but that doesn't mean
>>> it should be on-by-default.
>>>
>>> Along similar lines, Categories 2 and 3 overlap: we might have an
>>> experimental language feature that violates a general principle. (Perhaps
>>> UndecidableSuperClasses?)
>>>
>>> I tend to think that we'll have an easier time proceeding with 1)
>>> orthogonal categories and 2) separation between technical content and
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> I thus propose the following taxonomy, where each extension gets rated
>>> along each axis.
>>>
>>> A. Is the extension flag purely a language extension? That is, does the
>>> flag enable only new programs, without changing the semantics of any
>>> existing programs?
>>>
>>> Possible answers: sliding scale 1-5, where 1 means "programs written and
>>> widely used today would break and/or change meaning" and 5 means "no
>>> programs at all change meaning". It's a sliding scale to account for the
>>> fact that e.g. -XTypeFamilies once upon a time meant that all programs
>>> retain meanings... except for ones which name a type variable `family`.
>>> (Now, `family` is unconditionally a keyword in types, so -XTypeFamilies is,
>>> I believe, a 5.) So if there are obscure programs that change meaning, we
>>> can use 2, 3, and 4 as a way of stating how obscure the programs are.
>>> (Higher number = more obscure.)
>>>
>>> B. How stable is the extension flag?
>>>
>>> Possible answers: sliding scale 1-5, where 1 means "likely to change
>>> soon" and 5 means "as unlikely to change as the definition of Monad". (That
>>> was chosen deliberately: we *did* change the definition of Monad!) For me,
>>> a criterion required to write 5 here would be the possibility of writing
>>> down a formal specification of the extension. (So -XGADTs could not be a 5.)
>>>
>>> C. Would a user always want to enable this extension for an entire file
>>> (as opposed to for local regions)?
>>>
>>> Possible answers: sliding scale 1-5, where 1 means "there shouldn't even
>>> be a way to enable it for a whole file" and 5 means "no -- a user who wants
>>> this flag would want it for the whole file". I would put GADTSyntax as a 5
>>> and OverlappingInstances as a 1. GADTs would (for me) be a 4, because maybe
>>> someone wants to say that one part of a file is more type-y than the rest.
>>>
>>> D. How much do we like the extension?
>>>
>>> Possible answers: sliding scale 1-5, where 1 means "this shouldn't be
>>> here" and 5 means "I want this on by default (ignoring backward
>>> compatibility)". -XDatatypeContexts would be a 1: we should never have had
>>> that in the language. -XOverloadedStrings would be a 5: even if we don't
>>> want it enabled everywhere, it's a vastly useful extension that lots of
>>> people depend on.
>>>
>>> E. Does the extension flag change the language, as opposed to the
>>> operation of the compiler?
>>>
>>> Possible answers: sliding scale 1-5, where 1 means "purely about the
>>> compiler operation" and 5 means "purely about the language". Most
>>> extensions (e.g. -XPolyKinds) would be 5; -XCPP would be 1. I would put
>>> -XTemplateHaskell around a 4, because it's mostly about the language, but
>>> it impacts cross-compilation and recompilation avoidance. -XSafe is a 2: it
>>> affects the way instances are selected, I think.
>>>
>>> F. How broad is the use-case for the extension?
>>>
>>> Possible answers: sliding scale 1-5, where 1 means "very specialized"
>>> and 5 is "broadly useful in many contexts". I would put
>>> -XMultiParamTypeClasses at a 5 and -XMagicHash at a 2. I'm struggling to
>>> come up with something so specialized as to be worth a 1. I would say
>>> -XTypeFamilies and -XGADTs are 4.
>>>
>>> I think these questions A-F cover the range of categories Arnaud
>>> proposes, while addressing Joachim's and Simon M's desires to keep separate
>>> things separate. Having each question have a sliding-scale answer is also
>>> nice: it means we can submit our classifications of each extension and just
>>> average the results. This avoids time wasted in debate. (You can even
>>> submit decimals in the range 1-5, if you like!) I would propose that we
>>> highlight and debate any question/extension pair where the (max - min) > 2,
>>> as there may be disagreement about what the extension or the question
>>> means. And we have a natural way to identify candidates for inclusion in
>>> GHC20XX: multiply (or add; I think multiply) the 6 scores for an extension
>>> and then set a threshold for acceptance. (I don't think we would do this
>>> blindly, at all, but it would offer a wonderful starting-point.)
>>>
>>> Having upended the table and made a mess of things, I will now answer
>>> the other questions ignoring this new proposal.
>>>
>>> > Q2: Is category 6 relevant?
>>>
>>> Yes, but it's on the wrong axis.
>>>
>>> > Q2.Y: If you found category 6 to be relevant: should it be its own
>>> >            category, or should it be a subcategory of 1?
>>>
>>> I see 6 and 1 not having a relationship: 6 is about syntax, while 1 is
>>> about whether we like an extension.
>>>
>>> > Q3: Is category 7 relevant?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> > Q3.Y: If you found category 7 to be relevant: should it be its own
>>> >            category or should it be a subcategory of 5?
>>>
>>> Hard to say. MagicHash and UnboxedTuples could in theory be flags. But
>>> maybe there are other 7s that wouldn't?
>>>
>>> >  Q4: In which category would you classify Strict?
>>>
>>> 5, in that Strict is a compiler flag, but it doesn't certainly change
>>> the language.
>>>
>>> >  Q5: Is there any category that you feel is missing from the list? If
>>> >        so, please argue (free form).
>>>
>>> I've done that enough already. :)
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230306/dddc73f4/attachment.html>