Sequences of bindings for `let ... in`

[j14159]

Rather than:

let add x y = x + y in
let square x = x * x in
add 2 (square 3)

I'd like to be able to do something like

let
  add x y = x + y;
  square x = x * x
in add 2 (square 3)

[OvermindDL1]

I'd say no on that personally. That is a Haskell'y format that implies that they can be recursively defined, which I highly doubt is the case here?

[j14159]

To clarify, do you mean that it would imply we can define recursive functions in the let binding or that functions in the sequence can refer to ones previously defined in the same sequence?

[OvermindDL1]

To clarify, do you mean that it would imply we can define recursive functions in the let binding or that functions in the sequence can refer to ones previously defined in the same sequence?

As in the syntax given reminds of the Haskell syntax where you can define recursive functions, a trivial example:

let
  blee x =
    | x <= 0 = 0
    | otherwise = blah x
  blah x = bleh (x - 1)
in blah 42

In Haskell such a form is naturally recursive, the equivalent form in OCaml, as an example, could be:

let rec blee = function
  | x when x<0 -> 0
  | x = blah x in
and blah x = bleh (x - 1) in
blah 42

Also, if your function returns unit in OCaml, you can elide the let .. in construct to just a trailing ;, thus these are equivilent (and the returning unit part is likely to be enforced in future versions):

let () = someFuncThatReturnsUnit 42 in

someFuncThatReturnsUnit 42;

TL;DR: It would imply to me that the functions within would be mutually recursive, also the ; is heavily overloaded for my mental state as it is, so using it as a separator within a let binding feels very odd. ^.^

[j14159]

Ah, I think I see. So in Alpaca atm all function bindings are actually let rec (in the Core Erlang AST) and there's no special syntax for mutually recursive functions, e.g.

let a () = b ()
let b () = a ()

is perfectly fine (assuming top-level bindings for both here). Both have the return type "infinitely recursive" (t_rec in the typer's paralance). Having said all that I can definitely see how the way I framed this could be confusing :)

I should have been a bit more specific, I was referring to bindings within top-level functions/bindings, e.g.

let foo () =
  let add x y = x + y in
  let square x = x * x in
  add 2 (square 3)

vs

let foo () =
  let
    add x y = x + y;
    square x = x * x
  in add 2 (square 3)

Better/worse? Totally open to different separators.

[OvermindDL1]

I should have been a bit more specific, I was referring to bindings within top-level functions/bindings, e.g.

I meant the same. ^.^

I definitely prefer the let .. in syntax personally, but then again I prefer OCaml syntax over Haskell, so I am biased. ^.^

(In OCaml, the 'rec' is not default not because it would slow down compilation or anything, but because OCaml lets you 'name' a function then overwrite it later to be exposed, and this is entirely doable in the Erlang AST as well by just having the non-exposed variants have private unique names. OCaml uses this so that you can do things like open Some.Module, which imports all of the functions in that module into the scope here (exposing them publicly as well, if you do not want that then use include Some.Module instead), thus you can expose an identical interface from another module but with some custom overridden functions or added functions, so you could do something like open Map into your own MyMap module, then overwrite the get function so that instead of throwing an exception on failure it would return an 'key option instead for example. It has other great uses that Haskell just cannot emulate well as well. :-) )

[j14159]

Interesting...bindings within top-level bindings in Alpaca are rewritten/renamed with synthetic/unique names but then checked for collision with bindings created later, e.g.

let f () =
  let x = 2 in
  let y = x +2 in
  let x = 3 in
  x +y

will generate a duplicate definition error. The motivation behind the check is to explicitly remove the ability to shadow things, especially with respect to changing types and renaming is to avoid a few issues with names escaping receives.

With respect to the open syntax you mentioned, function imports (see PR #84) I think will do what you're describing. An explicit module.function reference will win over a local definition but a local definition will always win over an imported one. Having said that, things like OCaml's signature and module system haven't really been discussed yet and should be soon! I'm not entirely sure which way I want to jump but I do like things like:

• programming to an interface (signatures)
• dependency injection (can kind of do this with functors? @saem and I have talked a little about this, it's one of the few things about OOP we both like)

I think this sort of thing does help address Erlang behaviours or something like them as well. @tuncer and I talked a little bit about things like 1ML and a few other things a while back but to be perfectly honest I've got a lot more reading and understanding to do :) I may be getting into the weeds a bit here, probably a better discussion for a new issue or on irc.

[saem]

In regards to the points raised in this thread:

• Repeated let ... in vs let ... $SEPARATOR ... in

The latter reads more nicely than the former (pure opinion), from the perspective that I like code to come off as a narrative. Repeated let ... ins are clunky. But I'm trying to think about it from @OvermindDL1's perspective, in terms of what other subtleties does this imply.

• let vs let rec might be a worth while distinction

Borrowing from OCaml (which I know little about), and this explanation about let vs let rec, and why one might care, it seems the distinction is worthwhile. Given let rec, and let nonrec behaviour, I'm not sure what you'd want a let to default to.

[yurrriq]

In LFE, people seem to strongly dislike like the distinction between (let ...), as in:

let x = 42
    y = x + 1 (* Error: x is undefined) *)
in ...

... and (let* ...)

let x = 42
    y = x + 1
in ... (* y = 43 *)

In those terms, Clojure defaults to the let* (henceforth sequential let) behaviour.

As far as that concern, I'd prefer sequential let. As far as the let vs let rec discussion, I'd prefer an explicit rec, as in local functions defined with just let are not recursive (but can refer to local definitions that precede them).

For the separator, I like "new line and leading indentation match" and maybe ;, as in:

let x = 42
    y = x + 1
in ...

or

let x = 42
    y = x + 1 in
    ...

and maybe

let x = 42; y = x + 1 in ...

Does Alpaca have a where keyword?

[j14159]

@OvermindDL1 @saem I missed the distinction between open and include where it sounds like the former serves almost as a sort of "default implementation" or simple inheritance mechanism. The function import stuff in PR #84 and the semantics/overriding I described are applicable only to the include side of OCaml of course. The open examples are really interesting but I think that if we chase something similar it has significantly broad enough implications that it warrants some care with a much longer view and as such I think we should probably have a separate discussion (or many perhaps) about it and how it might interact with something like signatures and modules vs traits and implementations vs type classes, etc.

My basic opinion right now: I see value in default implementations of signatures/interfaces but would like to consider more specificity than open appears to provide. Thoughts? Links to papers most definitely appreciated :D I have opened issue #90 for this purpose.

@yurrriq with respect to sequential let I'm firmly in the same camp as you. I'm honestly not sure what the utility of (let ...) is :) Top-level bindings are let rec mostly because they are in Erlang as well and I didn't see a particularly good reason for them not to be but I'm more than happy to hear reasons counter!

As for separators I don't have any really strong feelings aside from not using significant whitespace. @ypaq I think was right to push for its removal in IRC and @lepoetemaudit just went through a fair bit of work removing the need for it (part of the reason we now have leading lets and a h/t to @ypaq again for all the property based tests to help shake out more bugs). I suggested ; for the separator only because it currently has no use/meaning in Alpaca.

[OvermindDL1]

Top-level bindings are let rec mostly because they are in Erlang as well and I didn't see a particularly good reason for them not to be but I'm more than happy to hear reasons counter!

They do not need to be though. The external interface for a module is defined explicitly in the EVM so you could easily build up a list of internal functions with the final defined set being the ones that are actually exposed (rename prior). :-)

[j14159]

Oh definitely possible yes :)

My reluctance to go this direction is an assumption that most people coming from languages other than OCaml might naturally expect functions to be essentially let rec by default, e.g. from Erlang, Haskell, Scala, etc. In terms of the discussion in #90 about open and default implementations I'd almost prefer an explicit override rather than (what feels to me like) implicit behaviour.

open, etc aside, are there things I'm missing/unaware of that aren't possible or rendered more difficult given the import semantics in PR #84 ?

PS I really appreciate the input/feedback/ideas.

[saem]

In regards to the question about where raised by @yurrriq's, a long debate has been going on in Elm, and there is a particularly good summary of it by Colin Woodbury.

It's interesting covering a number of issues around git diffs, action to intent/return distance, etc...

I do think that it's a nice to have, and people can make do in the mean time, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to sideline it for now.

[j14159]

@saem that's a really great post, thanks for linking it! "Intent first" is an interesting way to put it and I think a good argument in favour of us adding where at some point. I don't think it would be particularly difficult to do entirely on the parser side of things either, no AST nor typer changes would be necessary.

[lpil]

:-1: from me. I would prefer there to be only one way to create variables and this new syntax does not add anything not already possible with the existing syntax.