[ghc-steering-committee] #583: HasField redesign, rec: accept
Arnaud Spiwack
arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io
Tue Oct 3 09:52:25 UTC 2023
Let's do a quick vote. All, which do you prefer?
A. Introduce the breakage immediately and change the argument order of
setField (current state of the proposal)
B. Introduce a new extension -XOverloadedRecordUpdateNew which would use a
setField with a different argument order, so that it can be used during the
transition period. Eventually OverloadedRecordUpdateNew becomes deprecated
and OverloadedRecordUpdate swaps the argument order. (Moritz's proposal)
C. Keep the originally proposed setField argument order (nobody have
suggested this yet, but I'm including it for completeness)
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 10:33, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sure.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm not trying to set a precedent here!
>
> Simon
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 09:26, Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I’m not going to stay in the way of this proposal. I’hope it’s
>> understandable if I recuse myself.
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 4:18 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <
>> simon.peytonjones at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have to balance the cost of mitigation against the cost of breakage.
>>>
>>> - Cost of breakage. Adam has identified only two packages that
>>> woud, both of which can adapt promptly. It's true that there is more code
>>> out there, but the absence on Hackage is strongly indicative that there is
>>> unlikely to be much.
>>> - Cost of mitigation. Supporting both behaviours, having extra
>>> language flags, that must in turn themselves be deprecated away, are real
>>> costs. The suck effort away from more productive activity.
>>> - I completely agree that if we had a classification,
>>> OverloadedRecordUpdate would have been classified as Experimental, and we
>>> would not be discussing deprecation cycles. And signalling what is
>>> experimental and what is stable is a *primary *goal of the stability
>>> conversation we are having. I agree strongly with Moritz on this point.
>>> - However the user manual (Section 6.5.11
>>> <https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/overloaded_record_update.html?highlight=overloaded%20record#overloaded-record-update>)
>>> says "*EXPERIMENTAL* *This design of this extension may well change
>>> in the future. It would be inadvisable to start using this extension for
>>> long-lived libraries just yet*". Short of an official
>>> classification mechanism, which we don't have yet, it seems hard to imagine
>>> a clearer statement than that.
>>>
>>> My judgement: in this case we should forge ahead without introducing
>>> OverloadedRecordNew and supporting both behaviours. (I have not even begun
>>> to think about how hard that would be to implement.) Let's spend our
>>> precious cycles elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 08:48, Moritz Angermann <
>>> moritz.angermann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arnaud,
>>>>
>>>> That is a good argument. Without an opt-in to the new syntax, they
>>>> can't adapt. I guess this brings us to the extension lifecycle. A solution
>>>> could be
>>>> 1. Deprecate OverloadedRecordUpdate in favour of
>>>> OverloadedRecordUpdateNew. The user can adapt their code and use a
>>>> different Extension.
>>>> 2. Eventually Have OverloadedRecordUpdateNew be a synonym for changed
>>>> OverloadedRecordUpdate. And Deprecate OverloadedRecordUpdateNew
>>>> over a longer period of time.
>>>>
>>>> I think this actually shows the value a `--std=experimental` could
>>>> have. If `OverloadedRecordUpdate` was behind `--std=experimental` breaking
>>>> it would
>>>> be permissible by design. And we would not have this discussion, and
>>>> Adam would not need to try to find all the potential breaking codes. This
>>>> is part
>>>> of the proposal to make `--std=experimental` a thing, allow fast(er)
>>>> paced iteration on the experimental side of the compiler, while being
>>>> extremely
>>>> explicit about it being experimental features that can break at any
>>>> time and without warning.
>>>>
>>>> The deprecation process outlined above would be fore non-experimental
>>>> features. They can still be changed, but with a more rigorous change
>>>> evolution.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps to clarify my position?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Moritz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 15:31, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Moritz: very clear thank you, though I'd like to understand how one
>>>>> could adapt during the transition period to an argument swap, would you
>>>>> say? Secondary question: if they can't adapt, isn't there a risk of making
>>>>> the breakage more painful by delaying it, and letting more people use
>>>>> -XOverloadedRecordUpdate with the argument order which isn't the final one?
>>>>>
>>>>> @Adam: we have to recognise that Hackage is not all the Haskell code.
>>>>> I expect Hackage to be a little more conservative in extensions than
>>>>> end-user applications. As such we're not guaranteed an absence of breakage
>>>>> (it's still probably quite small, but it's hard to quantify).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 09:21, Adam Gundry <adam at well-typed.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The backwards compatibility impact here is really extremely small,
>>>>>> because OverloadedRecordUpdate is essentially unusable at present (as
>>>>>> well as being explicitly documented as subject to change), so nobody
>>>>>> uses it. While someone could implement a warning when the extension
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> turned on to say that it will change in the future, I'm not sure I
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> much point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used https://hackage-search.serokell.io/?q=OverloadedRecordUpdate
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> look for occurrences of OverloadedRecordUpdate on Hackage, and I
>>>>>> found
>>>>>> precisely one pair of packages using it "for real":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> large-anon-0.3.0
>>>>>> large-records-0.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These packages were created by my colleague Edsko in discussion with
>>>>>> me,
>>>>>> and will need to be amended when the proposal is implemented, because
>>>>>> they want to take advantage of the new functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other packages on Hackage containing the string
>>>>>> OverloadedRecordUpdate are tools that reference all extensions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cabal-syntax-3.10.1.0
>>>>>> extensions-0.1.0.0
>>>>>> fourmolu-0.14.0.0
>>>>>> ghc-9.6.3
>>>>>> ghc-boot-th-9.6.3
>>>>>> ghc-exactprint-1.7.0.1
>>>>>> ghc-hs-meta-0.1.2.0
>>>>>> ghc-lib-9.6.2.20230523
>>>>>> ghc-lib-parser-9.6.2.20230523
>>>>>> hackport-0.8.4.0
>>>>>> haskell-src-meta-0.8.12
>>>>>> hindent-6.1.0
>>>>>> hlint-3.6.1
>>>>>> ormolu-0.7.2.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> plus there are a few references in comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lifx-lan-0.8.2
>>>>>> optics-core-0.4.1.1
>>>>>> pvector-0.1.1
>>>>>> record-dot-preprocessor-0.2.16
>>>>>> tztime-0.1.1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I generally agree with the "don't abruptly break existing code"
>>>>>> position, in this case I don't think there is code out there to break.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/10/2023 01:14, Moritz Angermann wrote:
>>>>>> > Arnaud,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > thank you for your write up. And sorry that my view seems to be not
>>>>>> > clear. Let me try to explain.
>>>>>> > My position is: I'm against anything that _abruptly_ breaks
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> > code. That's basically all there is to it.
>>>>>> > Therefore I'm strongly against breaking changes without an
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> > warning period (from the compiler).
>>>>>> > I also strongly believe that most people do not read documentation,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> > the authoritative messages are
>>>>>> > the ones the compiler produces. As I've alluded to in a different
>>>>>> email,
>>>>>> > there are lots of people who work
>>>>>> > on software as a 9-5 job, and don't spend their freetime tinkering
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> > playing with languages. They just
>>>>>> > want to get the job done they are assigned. I have a lot of respect
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> > them. In my experience they don't
>>>>>> > read compiler release announcements, or even go and read the
>>>>>> compiler
>>>>>> > documentation. They are given
>>>>>> > the compiler version the company decided on for use in production.
>>>>>> > That's the tool they use. And that tool
>>>>>> > in my opinion needs to be rock solid, and not break easily across
>>>>>> > versions. Thus yes, I would very much
>>>>>> > like to see us not have breaking changes at all, but I can see that
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> > may need breaking changes
>>>>>> > occasionally. In those cases I want it to be very visible to the
>>>>>> > consumers that this breaking change is
>>>>>> > coming towards them (compiler warnings). Giving them some time to
>>>>>> adjust
>>>>>> > (migration period), until the
>>>>>> > breaking change happens. Ultimately we should be able to compiler
>>>>>> > existing code that compiles today
>>>>>> > with at least the next compiler without it rejecting the code or
>>>>>> needing
>>>>>> > modifications to the code (-Werror
>>>>>> > excluded).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thus what I'm arguing for is:
>>>>>> > - Let's implement this backwards compatibility.
>>>>>> > - Add compiler warnings about the arguments being swapped in a
>>>>>> future
>>>>>> > GHC version. For _a least_ one major release.
>>>>>> > - Make the breaking change in a subsequent release.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Alternatively I could also see:
>>>>>> > - Adding compiler warnings now that the arguments will be swapped
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> > future GHC version (for at least one major release).
>>>>>> > - Implement the breaking change in a subsequent release.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Either of those would be ok with me. Implementing a breaking change
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> > one version to the next, without an
>>>>>> > appropriate deprecation/migration period (that is, the compiler
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> > warn loudly that changes are coming) is something
>>>>>> > I am _very_ vehemently against.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If the migration/deprecation warnings would provide a link to a
>>>>>> GitHub
>>>>>> > ticket or something where more information
>>>>>> > can be found and maybe even a discussion could be had would
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> > also be a good idea.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I hope this helps clarify my position? If not, feel free to ask
>>>>>> more,
>>>>>> > I'm also happy to jump onto a call to explain my
>>>>>> > position if needed.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Best,
>>>>>> > Moritz
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 23:31, Arnaud Spiwack <
>>>>>> arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io
>>>>>> > <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Sorry I took a little bit of time to react to this, it was a
>>>>>> lot to
>>>>>> > take in and I didn't have the mental space last week.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The only person that may have spoken against the current state
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> > the proposal is Moritz. Yet I realise that I don't actually
>>>>>> know,
>>>>>> > Moritz, what your position is.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > To recap: to use -XOverloadedRecordUpdate in current GHC, you
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> > to use -XRebindableSyntax and provide a setField function. In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > new proposal you can use -XOverloadedRecordUpdate without
>>>>>> > -XRebindableSyntax, but when -XRebindableSyntax is on, the
>>>>>> setField
>>>>>> > function that you have to provide has its argument swapped. The
>>>>>> > current documentation of OverloadedRecordUpdate has the
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> > text at the top “*EXPERIMENTAL* /This design of this extension
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> > well change in the future. It would be inadvisable to start
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> > this extension for long-lived libraries just yet./”.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Now, I don't quite see how we could have a transition period
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> > would allow a smooth transition there. There is no piece of
>>>>>> code,
>>>>>> > with RebindableSyntax, that would compile before and after the
>>>>>> > change. So unless I'm missing something the position we can
>>>>>> take as
>>>>>> > a committee can be either
>>>>>> > - Let's have the breakage without a transition period
>>>>>> > - Let's not make the breaking change ever and use the earlier
>>>>>> > argument order for set
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Which one do you argue for, or am I missing another option?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 15:36, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io
>>>>>> > <mailto:eric at seidel.io>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I am in favor of this proposal.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, at 03:37, Arnaud Spiwack wrote:
>>>>>> > > Dear all.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > I submitted my recommendation 3 weeks ago, and only
>>>>>> Simon has
>>>>>> > commented
>>>>>> > > yet. Please let me know your thoughts.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 16:27, Arnaud Spiwack
>>>>>> > <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > >> Dear all,
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Don't forget to opine here. To reiterate, I really don't
>>>>>> > expect the proposal to be controversial. The text of the
>>>>>> > proposal is rather long, but is made easy to read. So it
>>>>>> > shouldn't take too much of your time.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> /Arnaud
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 01:03, Simon Peyton Jones
>>>>>> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com
>>>>>> > <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> > >>> I support acceptance.
>>>>>> > >>>
>>>>>> > >>> Simon
>>>>>> > >>>
>>>>>> > >>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:09, Arnaud Spiwack
>>>>>> > <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > >>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> [ Proposal #583
>>>>>> > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/583
>>>>>> > <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/583> ]
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> Our own Adam proposes to amend the design of the
>>>>>> highly
>>>>>> > experimental OverloadedRecordUpdate extension as had been
>>>>>> > designed in proposal #158 [
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0158-record-set-field.rst
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0158-record-set-field.rst>
>>>>>> ] and #405 [ https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/405
>>>>>> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/405> ].
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> Specifically, Adam proposes a modification of the type
>>>>>> > classes that would back the extension.
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> In the previous design the HasField class is defined
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>> > lens:
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> class HasField (n :: k) r a | r n -> a
>>>>>> > >>>> hasField :: r -> (a -> r, a)
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> The proposal is to replace it by two classes (slightly
>>>>>> > simplified)
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> class HasField (n :: k) r a | r n -> a
>>>>>> > >>>> hasField :: r -> a
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> class SetField (n::k) r a | r n -> a
>>>>>> > >>>> modifyField :: (a -> a) -> r -> a
>>>>>> > >>>> setField :: a -> r -> a
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> This is originally motivated by some performance
>>>>>> > consideration: the prototype implementation of HasField as a
>>>>>> > lens can be very time consuming because instances of
>>>>>> HasFields
>>>>>> > are generated eagerly at record definition sites, whereas
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > simple HasField instances can simply reuse the selectors
>>>>>> already
>>>>>> > generated by GHC. But a lot of thoughts have been put into
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > new design, and my summary can certainly not do it justice:
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > proposal is very well argumented.
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> A point I'll make here is that the new design is
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> > parametric in the data representation of the field type.
>>>>>> > Something that wasn't possible in the original design.
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> This proposal is not technically backward compatible,
>>>>>> > because the order of argument in which
>>>>>> OverloadedRecordUpdate
>>>>>> > expects the argument of setField is changed. This is not
>>>>>> > essential to the proposal, but this is a more consistent
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> > argument with the rest of Haskell. And considering that
>>>>>> > OverloadedRecordUpdate is very loudly advertised as
>>>>>> > experimental, I recommend accepting this breakage.
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> Overall the proposal is actually more backward
>>>>>> compatible
>>>>>> > with GHC 9.8 than the original design, as the HasField
>>>>>> class is
>>>>>> > left unchanged.
>>>>>> > >>>>
>>>>>> > >>>> Overall, the proposal looks quite reasonable to me,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> > well-argued. I recommend acceptance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
>>>>>> Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
>>>>>> 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/27+Old+Gloucester+Street,+London+WC1N+3AX,+England?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>>>>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Arnaud Spiwack
>>>>> Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
--
Arnaud Spiwack
Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20231003/adc2f186/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ghc-steering-committee
mailing list