Syntax extensions (was: RE: The Future of Haskell discussion at the Haskell Workshop)

Iavor Diatchki [email protected]
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:18:15 -0700


hello,

it's a pity i don't know how to get my mailer to reply to a few messages 
at once :-)

i also like mark's idea.  i know that ghc can alredy achive some of that 
with the OPTION pragmas, but i think it is nice if we can reuse what is 
already in the language rather than making programmers learn yet another 
construct.  reduce the cognitive overhead so to speak (i've wanted to 
use this phrase since i learned it in HCI class :-)

Magnus Carlsson wrote:
> Mark P Jones writes an interesting suggestion:
>  ...
>  > Hmm, ok, but perhaps you're worrying now about having to enumerate
>  > a verbose list of language features at the top of each module you
>  > write.  Isn't that going to detract from readability?  This is where
>  > the module system wins big!  Just define a new module that imports all
>  > the features you need, and then allows you to access them by a single
>  > name.  For example, you could capture the second feature set above
>  > in the following:
>  > 
>  >   module HackersDelight where
>  >   import Extensions.Language.Mdo
>  >   import Extensions.Records.Structs
>  >   import Extensions.Types.RankN
>  >   import Extensions.Types.Multiparam
actually the way the module system works at the moment this sould 
probably be written as:

module HackersDelight (module A) where
import Extensions.Language.Mdo 		as A
import Extensions.Records.Structs	as A
import Extensions.Types.RankN		as A
import Extensions.Types.Multiparam	as A

otherwise i would assume that the extensions only apply to the current 
module.

> Neat!  But maybe it is not always desirable to impose an extension on
> the client of a module, just because the module itself needs it.
i think with the above interpretation no extensions would be forced on a 
client, unless a module actually re-exports the extensions it used.

> If extensions were a kind of entity that can be mentioned in export and
> import lists, we could write
> 
>   module HackersDelight(mdo,structs,rankN,multiparam) where
>   import Extensions.Language(mdo)
>   ...
> 
> Now, familiar mechanisms can be used from the module system.  In
> particular, we can encode Hal's example (all extensions except
> Template Haskell):
> 
>   import HackersDelight hiding (th)
yes, this is nice. and i don't think it can be done if extnesions are 
modules (as mark suggested) rather than entities (as magnus suggested). 
  one thing to consider though is that if extensions are entities they 
can presumably be mentioned in expressions, etc.  one way to handle that 
is to introduce a new kind, e.g. something like:

mdo :: Extension :: ExtensionKind

an alternative (perhaps simpler) approach would be to have extensions 
live in another name space, so that they can't syntactically be placed 
in expressions, e.g. something like:
import HackersDelight hidning (#th)

bye
iavor


-- 
==================================================
| Iavor S. Diatchki, Ph.D. student               |
| Department of Computer Science and Engineering |
| School of OGI at OHSU                          |
| http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~diatchki               |
==================================================