Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-24 Thread Mario Blažević

On 2017-05-24 10:28 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

I've ended up uncertain, so I'll just throw it out there: are unused
value warnings affected by this proposal?


that is a very good point, thanks for raising it. I have two different
answers:

A) You are right. Everything is exported, so without an explicit module
header, unused value warnings would not happen. This is undesirable,
and thus this proposal should probably be killed.

B) Warnings are not specified by the report, and the implementation is
free to warn about unused bindings in a headerless Main module, based
on the implementation’s knowledge that even though these are exported,
they are not used.


I would say

B') Warnings are not specified by the report.

We can pretty much stop there. If you want to go deeper, IMO the 
compiler should just suppress the warnings by default. A headerless 
module would normally be used only for examples and quick tests, unused 
binding warnings would be a nuisance for that use case.




But answer B is less convincing in the corner case of Main being
mutually recursive with another module. (Who would do that without
naming Main? But yes, it is a problem.)


	When dicussing a software-engineering issue like compiler warnings, as 
opposed to a language-design issue, it doesn't make sense to concentrate 
on corner cases. A non-root Main module is already a corner case. A 
non-root header-less Main module is a corner inside a corner case. 
Whoever does that may miss some compiler warnings, depending on the 
compiler implementation. I won't lose any sleep over that. If the 
compiler developers do, they have the option to issue the unused-binding 
warnings only when a header-less module is imported.


___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-24 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 24.05.2017, 21:50 +0800 schrieb Ben Millwood:
> Initially I was concerned that this proposal would implicitly export 
> everything from Main, which would then prevent compilers from warning 
> about unused values, since they can't tell if seemingly-unused things 
> are in fact being exported for use elsewhere (perhaps by a program that 
> is not currently being compiled, so looking at what exported values are 
> used elsewhere is not a solution).
> 
> Then I started wondering if a standards-compliant Haskell program can 
> ever import anything from a module called Main (because module names 
> should be unique across a program, and there should be a Main module 
> at the root of the dependency graph).
> 
> Then I started wondering about a Main module that was mutually recursive 
> with another module.
> 
> I've ended up uncertain, so I'll just throw it out there: are unused 
> value warnings affected by this proposal?

that is a very good point, thanks for raising it. I have two different
answers:

A) You are right. Everything is exported, so without an explicit module
header, unused value warnings would not happen. This is undesirable,
and thus this proposal should probably be killed.

B) Warnings are not specified by the report, and the implementation is
free to warn about unused bindings in a headerless Main module, based
on the implementation’s knowledge that even though these are exported,
they are not used.

But answer B is less convincing in the corner case of Main being
mutually recursive with another module. (Who would do that without
naming Main? But yes, it is a problem.)


So your point makes me less convinced about my proposal.


So maybe the solution is to not make this change, but rather change fix
the original problem (tools like IDEs complaining about the lack of
“main” in a headerless, main-less module) by being a bit more liberal
in these tools.

I still believe that the -main-is flag should affect the default module
header (GHC #13704), but that is a separate issue.


Well, thanks for the constructive feedback everyone :-)
Joachim

-- 
Joachim Breitner
  m...@joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-19 Thread Mario Blažević

On 19/05/17 07:12 PM, Francesco Ariis wrote:

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Joachim Breitner wrote:

I thought about this. But I fear that this will require a language
extension or flag, and then the developers (quite rightly) say that it
does not pull its weight of supporting both variants, and it gets lost.
But maybe I should give it a shot if they accept it.

Indeed this strikes me as a not a good extension to have: every extension
further fragments the ecosystem and is yet another thing to care about if
you are reading someone else's code, etc. - the cost probably outweights
the benefit on this one.

But it seems a good proposal for H2020, as (if it is accepted), the costs
linked with an extension/flag (added complexity, fragmentation of the
community) aren't there.

The "extensions before report modification" is a solid rule, maybe
the committee wants to add an exception for proposals which cannot
realistically be "packaged" (and achieve widespread use) into
extensions?


I feel it's rather ironic that there exists a class of proposals 
that are considered acceptable for Haskell' but too radical for GHC, 
considering that the stands are usually completely opposite.


The obvious way out of this conundrum is to communicate with GHC. 
If the Haskell' committee gives a proposal some sort of conditional 
acceptance status, that should count for something with the GHC HQ. 
After all, they'd presumably have to implement it once it's officially a 
part of the next standard, so implementing it sooner as a proposal is 
not that much more to ask.


___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-19 Thread Francesco Ariis
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:32:30PM -0400, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> I thought about this. But I fear that this will require a language
> extension or flag, and then the developers (quite rightly) say that it
> does not pull its weight of supporting both variants, and it gets lost.
> But maybe I should give it a shot if they accept it.

Indeed this strikes me as a not a good extension to have: every extension
further fragments the ecosystem and is yet another thing to care about if
you are reading someone else's code, etc. - the cost probably outweights
the benefit on this one.

But it seems a good proposal for H2020, as (if it is accepted), the costs
linked with an extension/flag (added complexity, fragmentation of the
community) aren't there.

The "extensions before report modification" is a solid rule, maybe
the committee wants to add an exception for proposals which cannot
realistically be "packaged" (and achieve widespread use) into
extensions?
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-19 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi,

I thought about this. But I fear that this will require a language
extension or flag, and then the developers (quite rightly) say that it
does not pull its weight of supporting both variants, and it gets lost.
But maybe I should give it a shot if they accept it.

Joachim

Am Freitag, den 19.05.2017, 17:35 -0400 schrieb Mario Blažević:
> On 2017-05-16 10:18 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
> 
>   I like it, but it should probably be a GHC proposal first. I
> don't 
> think Haskell' is supposed to make any change to the standard that 
> hasn't been already implemented and tested. In this particular case,
> GHC 
> HQ might opt to implement your proposal but hide it behind a 
> command-line option, or to enable it by default only in GHCi. There
> are 
> already precedents for this.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Currently, the report states
> > 
> > An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module
> > body,
> > is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be
> > ‘module
> > Main(main) where’.
> > 
> > I propose to change that to
> > 
> > An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module
> > body,
> > is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be
> > ‘module
> > Main where’.
> > 
> > The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
> > when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to
> > a
> > separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about
> > a
> > missing main function when editing such a file.
> > 
> > It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid
> > problems
> > like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1
> > 3704
> > 
> > 
> > I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary,
> > implementations
> > are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
> > other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
> > only main were exported.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Joachim
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Haskell-prime mailing list
> > Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
> > 
> 
> 
-- 
Joachim Breitner
  m...@joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-19 Thread Carter Schonwald
as a guideline what you say is true, and at least in this case as the
motivation is user focused it should be validated thusly :)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Mario Blažević  wrote:

> On 2017-05-16 10:18 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
>>
>
> I like it, but it should probably be a GHC proposal first. I don't
> think Haskell' is supposed to make any change to the standard that hasn't
> been already implemented and tested. In this particular case, GHC HQ might
> opt to implement your proposal but hide it behind a command-line option, or
> to enable it by default only in GHCi. There are already precedents for this.
>
>
>
>> Currently, the report states
>>
>> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
>> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
>> Main(main) where’.
>>
>> I propose to change that to
>>
>> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
>> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
>> Main where’.
>>
>> The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
>> when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
>> separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
>> missing main function when editing such a file.
>>
>> It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
>> like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704
>>
>>
>> I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
>> are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
>> other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
>> only main were exported.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Haskell-prime mailing list
>> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mario Blazevic
> mblaze...@stilo.com
> Stilo International
>
> This message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or
> distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient(s) please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> all copies of the original message and any attachments.
>
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-19 Thread Mario Blažević

On 2017-05-16 10:18 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi,

a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':


	I like it, but it should probably be a GHC proposal first. I don't 
think Haskell' is supposed to make any change to the standard that 
hasn't been already implemented and tested. In this particular case, GHC 
HQ might opt to implement your proposal but hide it behind a 
command-line option, or to enable it by default only in GHCi. There are 
already precedents for this.





Currently, the report states

An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
Main(main) where’.

I propose to change that to

An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
Main where’.

The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
missing main function when editing such a file.

It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704


I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
only main were exported.

Greetings,
Joachim





___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime




--
Mario Blazevic
mblaze...@stilo.com
Stilo International

This message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or
distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient(s) please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message and any attachments.
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-16 Thread Iavor Diatchki
One potential difference between the two is that the current behavior
allows the `Main` module to import `main` from another module, while the
new behavior would fail in that case.

For example, a file that has only a single line:

import SomeOtherModule(main)

This still seems like a fairly unusual corner case (with an obvious work
around), so I don't think it matters much, but I thought I'd mention it so
that we are aware of it.






On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Joachim Breitner 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
>
> Currently, the report states
>
> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> Main(main) where’.
>
> I propose to change that to
>
> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> Main where’.
>
> The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
> when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
> separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
> missing main function when editing such a file.
>
> It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
> like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704
>
>
> I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
> are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
> other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
> only main were exported.
>
> Greetings,
> Joachim
>
>
>
> --
> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
>   m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>   XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
>   Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
>
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-16 Thread Matthias Fischmann

you're inside the module, so you have access to all top-level
bindings, not just to the export list.

the issue with the implicit `module Main(main) where` is that it
errors if main is not defined, even though that's a perfectly harmless
situation.

(i hope i got the question right?)


On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 05:53:17PM +, Adam Bergmark wrote:
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 17:53:17 +
> From: Adam Bergmark <a...@bergmark.nl>
> To: José Manuel Calderón Trilla <j...@jmct.cc>, haskell-prime@haskell.org
> Subject: Re: Default module header `module Main where`
>
> GHCIs current behavior seems inconsistent with this, why is foo accessible
> and why don't I get an unused warning like i do if i have an explicit
> `module Main (main) where`?
>
> ```
> $ cat Main.hs
> main :: IO ()
> main = pure ()
>
> foo :: Int
> foo = 1
>
> $ ghci Main.hs -Wall
> GHCi, version 8.0.2: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/  :? for help
> Loaded GHCi configuration from /Users/adam.bergmark/.ghci
> [1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Main.hs, interpreted )
> Ok, modules loaded: Main.
>
> λ foo
> 1
> ```
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 19:00 José Manuel Calderón Trilla <j...@jmct.cc>
> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, this sounds sensible.
> >
> > Can anyone think of any unintended consequences?
> >
> > -Jose
> >
> > On Tue, May 16, 2017, at 09:50 AM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> >
> > That seems fairly reasonable to me.
> >
> > -Iavor
> >
> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Joachim Breitner <
> > m...@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
> >
> > Currently, the report states
> >
> > An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> > is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> > Main(main) where’.
> >
> > I propose to change that to
> >
> > An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> > is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> > Main where’.
> >
> > The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
> > when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
> > separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
> > missing main function when editing such a file.
> >
> > It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
> > like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704
> >
> >
> > I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
> > are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
> > other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
> > only main were exported.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Joachim
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
> >   m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> >   XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
> >   Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
> > ___
> > Haskell-prime mailing list
> > Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
> >
> > *___*
> > Haskell-prime mailing list
> > Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Haskell-prime mailing list
> > Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
> >

> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


--
https://zerobuzz.net/
m...@zerobuzz.net
+49 179 7733 223
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-16 Thread Adam Bergmark
GHCIs current behavior seems inconsistent with this, why is foo accessible
and why don't I get an unused warning like i do if i have an explicit
`module Main (main) where`?

```
$ cat Main.hs
main :: IO ()
main = pure ()

foo :: Int
foo = 1

$ ghci Main.hs -Wall
GHCi, version 8.0.2: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/  :? for help
Loaded GHCi configuration from /Users/adam.bergmark/.ghci
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( Main.hs, interpreted )
Ok, modules loaded: Main.

λ foo
1
```

On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 19:00 José Manuel Calderón Trilla 
wrote:

> Agreed, this sounds sensible.
>
> Can anyone think of any unintended consequences?
>
> -Jose
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017, at 09:50 AM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
>
> That seems fairly reasonable to me.
>
> -Iavor
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Joachim Breitner <
> m...@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
>
> Currently, the report states
>
> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> Main(main) where’.
>
> I propose to change that to
>
> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> Main where’.
>
> The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
> when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
> separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
> missing main function when editing such a file.
>
> It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
> like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704
>
>
> I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
> are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
> other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
> only main were exported.
>
> Greetings,
> Joachim
>
>
>
> --
> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
>   m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>   XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
>   Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
> *___*
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
>
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-16 Thread José Manuel Calderón Trilla
Agreed, this sounds sensible.

Can anyone think of any unintended consequences?

-Jose

On Tue, May 16, 2017, at 09:50 AM, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> That seems fairly reasonable to me.
> 
> -Iavor
> 
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Joachim Breitner  breitner.de> wrote:>> Hi,
>> 
>>  a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
>> 
>>  Currently, the report states
>> 
>>  An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module
>>  body,>>  is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be
>>  ‘module>>  Main(main) where’.
>> 
>>  I propose to change that to
>> 
>>  An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module
>>  body,>>  is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be
>>  ‘module>>  Main where’.
>> 
>>  The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.>>  when 
>> you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few
>>  extensions to a>>  separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will 
>> complain about a>>  missing main function when editing such a file.
>> 
>>  It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid
>>  problems>>  like the one described in
>>  https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704>> 
>> 
>>  I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary,
>>  implementations>>  are still able to detect that a Main module is not 
>> imported by any
>>  other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if>>  only 
>> main were exported.
>> 
>>  Greetings,
>>  Joachim
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Joachim “nomeata” Breitner  m...@joachim-breitner.de •
>>  https://www.joachim-breitner.de/  XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de
>>  • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F  Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org>> 
>> ___
>>  Haskell-prime mailing list
>> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>> 
> _
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Re: Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-16 Thread Iavor Diatchki
That seems fairly reasonable to me.

-Iavor

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Joachim Breitner 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':
>
> Currently, the report states
>
> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> Main(main) where’.
>
> I propose to change that to
>
> An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
> is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
> Main where’.
>
> The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
> when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
> separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
> missing main function when editing such a file.
>
> It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
> like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704
>
>
> I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
> are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
> other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
> only main were exported.
>
> Greetings,
> Joachim
>
>
>
> --
> Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
>   m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
>   XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
>   Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
> ___
> Haskell-prime mailing list
> Haskell-prime@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
>
>
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime


Default module header `module Main where`

2017-05-16 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi,

a very small proposal to be considered for Haskell':

Currently, the report states

An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
Main(main) where’.

I propose to change that to

An abbreviated form of module, consisting only of the module body,
is permitted. If this is used, the header is assumed to be ‘module
Main where’.

The rationale is that a main-less main module is still useful, e.g.
when you are working a lot in GHCi, and offload a few extensions to a
separate file. Currently, tools like hdevtools will complain about a
missing main function when editing such a file.

It would also work better with GHC’s -main-is flag, and avoid problems
like the one described in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/13704


I don’t see any downsides. When compiling to a binary, implementations
are still able to detect that a Main module is not imported by any
other module and only the main function is used, and optimize as if
only main were exported.

Greetings,
Joachim



-- 
Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  m...@joachim-breitner.de • https://www.joachim-breitner.de/
  XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • OpenPGP-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime