[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #608, -XPatternSignatureBinds. Rec: accept

[Arnaud Spiwack]

What I was asking was whether we imagined that `-XPatternSignatures`
without the ability to bind would be in a future `GHC20xx`, but we don't
think that `-XPatternSignature` with the ability to bind ought to. (and I
was musing that the ability to bind would be replaced by
`-XTypeAbstractions`).

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 16:43, Richard Eisenberg <reisenberg at janestreet.com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand Arnaud's question here: this proposal removes
> the binding capability from -XPatternSignatures. I don't think there's an
> interaction with -XTypeAbstractions.
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 3:04 AM Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Do we envision, maybe, a future with `-XPatternSignature`, in a version
>> that is incapable of binding and `-XTypeAbstractions`? If so, the split
>> sounds like a reasonable move. Otherwise, the benefit of the split sounds
>> rather slim, and it would need to be weighed against the costs and benefits
>> on the implementation.
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 at 07:07, Moritz Angermann <
>> moritz.angermann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As this is guarded behind a language extension and as such should not
>>> impact any existing code. I'm happy to see this change.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 at 04:43, Adam Gundry <adam at well-typed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm also happily in favour, for the reason Joachim articulates.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24/01/2024 18:24, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > Am Mittwoch, dem 24.01.2024 um 17:32 +0000 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
>>>> >> - Accepting will make at least one person (John) happy. And I don't
>>>> note anyone who would become unhappy. More happy people is more better. So
>>>> I recommend acceptance. :)
>>>> >
>>>> > unless I am mistaken, this proposal will also un-deprecated
>>>> > -XPatternSignatures, and give it the semantics I asked for in #119:
>>>> > allow me to write
>>>> >
>>>> >     foo :: Monad m => m Int
>>>> >     foo = do
>>>> >       list :: String <- return ""
>>>> >       return $ length list
>>>> >
>>>> > without treading into type variable territory, having to turn on
>>>> > ScopedTypeVariables or anything like that. Finally!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > So it also makes me a bit happy; in favor.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Joachim
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20240126/d0c8ccb0/attachment-0001.html>