Simon Marlow wrote:
On 26 January 2006 09:59, John Hughes wrote:
The solution I favour is simply to use *different syntax* for the two
forms of binding, so that a definition is monomorphic, and computed
at most once, if it uses the monomorphic binding operator, and
polymorphic/overloaded, computed at each use, if it uses the other.
Whether it's a function definition or not is irrelevant, as is whether
or not it carries a type signature.
The trick is finding good syntax. I suggest = for bind-by-name, and
:= for bind-by-need.
The reasoning for the proposal makes complete sense to me, but I don't
feel the proposed solution strikes the right balance. The MR is a
subtle point that we don't want to have to burden newcomers to the
language with, but having two forms of binding is a fundamental part of
the language design that would surely crop up early on the Haskell
learning curve. John - how do you envisage teaching this?
I don't think it's hard. I would just teach students to define functions
with =,
and "variables" with :=. I tell my students to write type signatures at
the beginning
anyway, so they don't risk being bitten by the M-R anyway. Beginning
students
just do what you tell them, and they already think of function and variable
definitions as different. Learning a different syntax for one of them
would not
be a problem.
Once they've mastered basic programming and start getting interested in
things
like overloading, then you have to explain how the M-R works. I'd much
rather
explain =/:= than try to teach them how you know whether a definition is
shared or not right now.
I wonder if there's an alternative solution along these lines:
- We use ParialTypeSignatures to make bindings monomorphic:
http://haskell.galois.com/cgi-bin/haskell-prime/trac.cgi/wiki/PartialTyp
eSigs
eg.
x :: _
x = (+1)
- we make it a static error for a variable bound by a simple pattern
binding ("x = e") to be overloaded, unless a type signature is
given.
The error message would explain the problem, and how to fix it.
Alternatively, we make it a strong warning.
It seems to me that the partial type signatures extension provides a lot
of bang for the buck - it gives us a way out of the MR in addition to
partial type signatures.
I don't like this. Once students start dropping type signatures (which
they do
pretty soon for local variables in where-clauses), they would sometimes--
unpredictably as far as they're concerned--get an error message telling them
they must put one back in again, but it's enough to write x :: _. Can
you imagine
explaining to an average student in the first year why they MUST put in a
type signature, but it doesn't need to include a type???
Don't underestimate the difficulties many students already face. At this
stage,
they're not even completely sure what the difference is between a type and a
value, let alone a type and a class! Understanding the effect of the
presence
or absence of a type signature is beyond most students until much, much
later.
If we replace or revise the M-R, the replacement should be very, very
simple.
The M-R in its present form is a clever, and not terribly complicated
solution
--but complicated enough to have caused no end of trouble over the years.
Let's not be clever, let's be straightforward and explicit: two binding
forms,
two notations.
John
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
