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

[Simon Peyton Jones]

When I review a proposal for a new extension, one of the
questions I ask myself is "would I eventually support including this in
a GHC20xx standard?" If the answer is no (and if the extension is not one
of the advanced or niche things like CPP), then I'm much less likely to
support it.


Aha.  Now I understand your point thanks.

In the glorious future, what do we want?

   - Plan A.   "A pattern signature brings into scope any variables that
   aren't already in scope".  It's a bit of a tricky rule. If we see `f (Just
   x) = rhs` we know that it brings `x` into scope regardless.  Simple.  No so
   with pattern-signatures!

   - Plan B.   Pattern signatures never bring anything into scope.  To do
   that, use @type patterns.  For example, instead of
       f (Just (x::a)) = rhs
   say
       f (Just @a x) = rhs
   Now it's clear that `a` is being brought into scope.

I lean towards Plan B, but you raise a good point.  I'd love to know what
our consensus is.   RSVP steering committee members.

Simon

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 00:12, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:

> I think it's mostly a philosophical point. We have GHC2021 which is the
> current "blessed" version of the language. It includes ScopedTypeVariables,
> which if I understand correctly is a superset of PatternSigs. We also want
> to move in the direction of having *fewer* interacting extensions. In my
> mind that is one of the main motivations for introducing the GHC20xx
> standards. When I review a proposal for a new extension, one of the
> questions I ask myself is "would I eventually support including this in
> a GHC20xx standard?" If the answer is no (and if the extension is not one
> of the advanced or niche things like CPP), then I'm much less likely to
> support it.
>
> So what is the purpose of refactoring extensions that are implied by
> ScopedTypeVariables? It seems like needless churn if ScopedTypeVariables
> is here to stay. On the other hand, if we mean to change
> ScopedTypeVariables
> we should be explicit about that.
>
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2024, at 16:56, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> > To me this looks uncontroversial.
> >  • We have a currently-deprecated extension -XPatternSignatures
> >  • This proposal rehabilitates it (with a narrower scope than before)
> > and adds a new one -XPatternSignatureBinds
> >  • If you don't use these extensions they won't harm you
> >  • The behaviour of -XScopedTypeVariables is unchanged
> > It's a fairly tiny thing, easy to implement, easy to document.  I don't
> > care very much, but I'm content to approve it.
> >
> > My only regret is that we don't have a "warning form" for language
> > extensions (see
> > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/620) . I'd like to
> > say -WPatternSignatureBinds, meaning to allow pattern-signatures to
> > bind, but warn on every such occasion.  Lacking such a "warning form"
> > we have to *also* have `-Wpattern-signature-binds`.
> >
> > Eric, I'm not sure what specifically you are objecting to.  Are you
> > making a philosophical point, or is there active harm here?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 19:44, Eric Seidel <eric at seidel.io> wrote:
> >> The motivation for this change does not make sense to me.
> ScopedTypeVariables
> >> is used everywhere and is even part of GHC2021. The goal of this change
> appears
> >> to be to extract out a controversial piece of PatternSignatures such
> that it
> >> could be later removed entirely, but without addressing the issue of
> >> ScopedTypeVariables.
> >>
> >> That's going about it the wrong way IMO. If we want to remove the
> behavior
> >> this proposal calls PatternSignatureBinds, the Committee should first
> adopt
> >> a resolution that we will remove (or alter the meaning of)
> ScopedTypeVariables
> >> in the next GHC20xx. If we get agreement on that, then this proposal
> could make
> >> sense as a step towards the broader goal.
> >>
> >> Outside of that broader agreement though, this feels more like a
> fork-inducing
> >> proposal and I would vote against.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, at 11:32, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> >> > John Ericson has submitted proposal #608
> >> > <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/608> about
> adding
> >> > -XPatternSignatureBinds. The proposal is an amendment and is thus a
> >> > little harder to consume. I recommend reading the summary here.
> >> >
> >> > Proposed change:
> >> >
> >> > The proposed -XPatternSignatureBinds takes a piece out from
> >> > -XPatternSignatures: with only -XPatternSignatures and not
> >> > -XPatternSignatureBinds, a pattern signature  can mention in-scope
> type
> >> > variables but can never bind fresh ones. With
> -XPatternSignatureBinds,
> >> > an appearance of an out-of-scope type variable in a pattern signature
> >> > will cause the variable to be bound to the type it unifies with.
> >> >
> >> > -XScopedTypeVariables will imply -XPatternSignatures
> >> > -XPatternSignatureBinds (and a few more), so the behavior of
> >> > -XScopedTypeVariables is completely unchanged. Note that
> >> > -XPatternSignatures is currently deprecated (and has been so for a
> long
> >> > time), so a change in behavior there is not so bad.
> >> >
> >> > Motivation for the change:
> >> >
> >> > - It is awkward to have a rule in a language where scoping behavior
> >> > depends on what else is in scope. This can confound e.g. tools meant
> to
> >> > find the bindings sites of a variable occurrence.
> >> > - The implicit binding we have today plays poorly with the plan to
> >> > allow users to pretend GHC has a unified namespace. That is, suppose
> x
> >> > is in scope as a term variable, and then we have f (... :: ... x ...)
> =
> >> > ... . Should that x be bound implicitly there or not? It's pretty
> >> > unclear. By separating out -XPatternSignatureBinds from
> >> > -XPatternSignatures, users of the latter are insulated from worrying
> >> > about this potential future change.
> >> >
> >> > My opinion:
> >> >
> >> > - John has argued that this will make future namespace changes
> easier.
> >> > I disagree with this assessment, because -XScopedTypeVariables is
> >> > utterly pervasive. So the problem that this change is supposed to
> solve
> >> > becomes only a tiny bit smaller, benefiting only those users who
> >> > carefully enable -XPatternSignatures but not, say,
> >> > -XScopedTypeVariables.
> >> > - But in the end, I don't care all that much. I've come to the
> opinion
> >> > that we shouldn't worry about the distinction between warnings and
> >> > extensions. The net effect of this proposal is to promote a warning
> >> > into an extension (because we previously had
> >> > -Wpattern-signature-binds). So if we shouldn't worry about this
> >> > distinction, then this proposal is a no-op on the aspects of the
> >> > language we should care about, and thus accepting and rejecting have
> >> > the same effect. (This little analysis only makes sense because the
> >> > features are so new -- there's no broad re-education to do or
> >> > back-compat issues.)
> >> > - 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. :)
> >> >
> >> > Please let us know your thoughts!
> >> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20240128/402bca4e/attachment.html>