Update SIPs state

_sips/sips/for-comprehension-improvements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+title: SIP-62 - For comprehension improvements
+status: submitted
+pull-request-number: 79
+stage: pre-sip
+
+---

_sips/sips/match-types-spec.md

@@ -253,8 +253,9 @@ At the top level, `variance = 1` and `scrutIsWidenedAbstract = false`.
 * If `P` is a `TypeWithoutCapture`:
   * Do nothing (always succeed).
 * If `P` is a `WildcardCapture` `ti = _`:
-  * If `X` is of the form `_ >: L <: H`, instantiate `ti := H` (anything between `L` and `H` would work here),
-  * Otherwise, instantiate `ti := X`.
+  * Instantiate `ti` so that the subtype test in Step (2) above always succeeds:
+    * If `X` is of the form `_ >: L <: H`, instantiate `ti := H` (resp. `L`, `X`) if `variance = 1` (resp. `-1`, `0`).
+    * Otherwise, instantiate `ti := X`.
 * If `P` is a `TypeCapture` `ti`:
   * If `X` is of the form `_ >: L <: H`,
     * If `scrutIsWidenedAbstract` is `true`, fail as not specific.

_sips/sips/replace-nonsensical-unchecked-annotation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+---
+layout: sip
+permalink: /sips/:title.html
+stage: implementation
+status: waiting-for-implementation
+presip-thread: https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/pre-sip-replace-non-sensical-unchecked-annotations/6342
+title: SIP-57 - Replace non-sensical @unchecked annotations
+---
+
+**By: Martin Odersky and Jamie Thompson**
+
+## History
+
+| Date          | Version            |
+|---------------|--------------------|
+| Dec 8th 2023  | Initial Draft      |
+| Jan 19th 2024 | Clarification about current @unchecked behavior |
+
+## Summary
+
+We propose to replace the mechanism to silence warnings for "unchecked" patterns, in the cases where silencing the warning will still result in the pattern being checked at runtime.
+
+Currently, a user can silence warnings that a scrutinee may not be matched by a pattern, by annotating the scrutinee with the `@unchecked` annotation. This SIP proposes to use a new annotation `@RuntimeCheck` to replace `@unchecked` for this purpose. For convenience, an extension method will be added to `Predef` that marks the receiver with the annotation (used as follows: `foo.runtimeCheck`). Functionally it behaves the same as the old annotation, but improves readability at the callsite.
+
+## Motivation
+
+As described in [Scala 3 Reference: Pattern Bindings](https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/changed-features/pattern-bindings.html), under `-source:future` it is an error for a pattern definition to be refutable. For instance, consider:
+```scala
+def xs: List[Any] = ???
+val y :: ys = xs
+```
+
+This compiled without warning in 3.0, became a warning in 3.2, and we would like to make it an error by default in a future 3.x version.
+As an escape hatch we recommend to use `@unchecked`:
+```
+-- Warning: ../../new/test.scala:6:16 ------------------------------------------
+6 |  val y :: ys = xs
+  |                ^^
+  |pattern's type ::[Any] is more specialized than the right hand side expression's type List[Any]
+  |
+  |If the narrowing is intentional, this can be communicated by adding `: @unchecked` after the expression,
+  |which may result in a MatchError at runtime.
+```
+Similarly for non-exhaustive `match` expressions, where we also recommend to put `@unchecked` on the scrutinee.
+
+But `@unchecked` has several problems. First, it is ergonomically bad. For instance to fix the exhaustivity warning in
+```scala
+xs match
+  case y :: ys => ...
+```
+we'd have to write
+```
+(xs: @unchecked) match
+  case y :: ys => ...
+```
+Having to wrap the `@unchecked` in parentheses requires editing in two places, and arguably harms readability: both due to the churn in extra symbols, and because in this use case the `@unchecked` annotation poorly communicates intent.
+
+Nominally, the purpose of the annotation is to silence warnings (_from the [API docs](https://www.scala-lang.org/api/3.3.1/scala/unchecked.html#)_):
+> An annotation to designate that the annotated entity should not be considered for additional compiler checks.
+
+_The exact meaning of this description is open to interpretation, leading to differences between Scala 2.13 and Scala 3.x. See the [misinterpretation](#misinterpretation-of-unchecked) annex for more._
+
+
+In the following code however, the word `unchecked` is a misnomer, so could be confused for another meaning by an inexperienced user:
+
+```scala
+def xs: List[Any] = ???
+val y :: ys = xs: @unchecked
+```
+ After all, the pattern `y :: ys` _is_ checked, but it is done at runtime (by looking at the runtime class), rather than statically.
+
+As a direct contradiction, in the following usage of `unchecked`, the meaning is the opposite:
+```scala
+xs match
+  case ints: List[Int @unchecked] =>
+```
+Here, `@unchecked` means that the `Int` parameter will _not_ be checked at runtime: The compiler instead trusts the user that `ints` is a `List[Int]`. This could lead to a `ClassCastException` in an unrelated piece of code that uses `ints`, possibly without leaving a clear breadcrumb trail of where the faulty cast originally occurred.
+
+## Proposed solution
+
+### High-level overview
+
+This SIP proposes to fix the ergnomics and readability of `@unchecked` in the usage where it means "checked at runtime", by instead adding a new annotation `scala.internal.RuntimeCheck`.
+
+```scala
+package scala.annotation.internal
+
+final class RuntimeCheck extends Annotation
+```
+
+In all usages where the compiler looks for `@unchecked` for this purpose, we instead change to look for `@RuntimeCheck`.
+
+By placing the annotation in the `internal` package, we communicate that the user is not meant to directly use the annotation.
+
+Instead, for convenience, we provide an extension method `Predef.runtimeCheck`, which can be applied to any expression.
+
+The new usage to assert that a pattern is checked at runtime then becomes as follows:
+```scala
+def xs: List[Any] = ???
+val y :: ys = xs.runtimeCheck
+```
+
+We also make `runtimeCheck` a transparent inline method. This ensures that the elaboration of the method defines its semantics. (i.e. `runtimeCheck` is not meaningful because it is immediately inlined at type-checking).
+
+### Specification
+
+The addition of a new `scala.Predef` method:
+
+```scala
+package scala
+
+import scala.annotation.internal.RuntimeCheck
+
+object Predef:
+  extension [T](x: T)
+    transparent inline def runtimeCheck: x.type =
+      x: @RuntimeCheck
+```
+
+### Compatibility
+
+This change carries the usual backward binary and TASTy compatibility concerns as any other standard library addition to the Scala 3 only library.
+
+Considering backwards source compatibility, the following situation will change:
+
+```scala
+// source A.scala
+package example
+
+extension (predef: scala.Predef.type)
+  transparent inline def runtimeCheck[T](x: T): x.type =
+    println("fake runtimeCheck")
+    x
+```
+```scala
+// source B.scala
+package example
+
+@main def Test =
+  val xs = List[Any](1,2,3)
+  val y :: ys = Predef.runtimeCheck(xs)
+  assert(ys == List(2, 3))
+```
+
+Previously this code would print `fake runtimeCheck`, however with the proposed change then recompiling this code will _succeed_ and no longer will print.
+
+Potentially we could mitigate this if necessary with a migration warning when the new method is resolved (`@experimental` annotation would be a start)
+
+
+In general however, the new `runtimeCheck` method will not change any previously linking method without causing an ambiguity compilation error.
+
+### Other concerns
+
+In 3.3 we already require the user to put `@unchecked` to avoid warnings, there is likely a significant amount of existing code that will need to migrate to the new mechanism. (We can leverage already exisiting mechanisms help migrate code automatically).
+
+### Open questions
+
+1) A large question was should the method or annotation carry semantic weight in the language. In this proposal we weigh towards the annotation being the significant element.
+The new method elaborates to an annotated expression before the associated pattern exhaustivity checks occur.
+2) Another point, where should the helper method go? In Predef it requires no import, but another possible location was the `compiletime` package. Requiring the extra import could discourage usage without consideration - however if the method remains in `Predef` the name itself (and documentation) should signal danger, like with `asInstanceOf`.
+
+3) Should the `RuntimeCheck` annotation be in the `scala.annotation.internal` package?
+
+### Misinterpretation of unchecked
+
+We would further like to highlight that the `unchecked` annotation is unspecified except for its imprecise API documentation. This leads to a crucial difference in its behavior between Scala 2.13 and the latest Scala 3.3.1 release.
+
+#### Scala 3 semantics
+
+Say you have the following:
+```scala
+val xs = List(1: Any)
+```
+
+The following expression in Scala 3.3.1 yields two warnings:
+```scala
+xs match {
+  case is: ::[Int] => is.head
+}
+```
+
+```scala
+2 warnings found
+-- [E029] Pattern Match Exhaustivity Warning: ----------------------------------
+1 |xs match {
+  |^^
+  |match may not be exhaustive.
+  |
+  |It would fail on pattern case: List(_, _*), Nil
+  |
+  | longer explanation available when compiling with `-explain`
+val res0: Int = 1
+-- Unchecked Warning: ----------------------------------------------------------
+2 |  case is: ::[Int] => is.head
+  |       ^
+  |the type test for ::[Int] cannot be checked at runtime because its type arguments can't be determined from List[Any]
+```
+
+using `@unchecked` on `xs` has the effect of silencing any warnings that depend on checking `xs`, so no warnings will be emitted for the following change:
+
+```scala
+(xs: @unchecked) match {
+  case is: ::[Int] => is.head
+}
+```
+
+#### Scala 2.13 semantics
+
+However, in Scala 2.13, this will only silence the `match may not be exhaustive` warning, and the user will still see the `type test for ::[Int] cannot be checked at runtime` warning:
+
+```scala
+scala> (xs: @unchecked) match {
+     |   case is: ::[Int] => is.head
+     | }          ^
+On line 2: warning: non-variable type argument Int in type pattern scala.collection.immutable.::[Int] (the underlying of ::[Int]) is unchecked since it is eliminated by erasure
+val res2: Int = 1
+```
+
+#### Aligning to Scala 2.13 semantics with runtimeCheck
+
+with `xs.runtimeCheck` we should still produce an unchecked warning for `case is: ::[Int] =>`
+```scala
+scala> xs.runtimeChecked match {
+     |   case is: ::[Int] => is.head
+     | }
+1 warning found
+-- Unchecked Warning: ----------------------------------------------------------
+2 |  case is: ::[Int] => is.head
+  |       ^
+  |the type test for ::[Int] cannot be checked at runtime because its type arguments can't be determined from List[Any]
+val res13: Int = 1
+```
+This is because `xs.runtimeChecked` means trust the user as long as the pattern can be checked at runtime.
+
+To fully avoid warnings, the `@unchecked` will be put on the type argument:
+```scala
+scala> xs.runtimeChecked match {
+     |   case is: ::[Int @unchecked] => is.head
+     | }
+val res14: Int = 1
+```
+This has a small extra migration cost because if the scrutinee changes from `(xs: @unchecked)` to `xs.runtimeCheck` now some individual cases might need to add `@unchecked` on type arguments to avoid creating new warnings - however this cost is offset by perhaps revealing unsafe patterns previously unaccounted for.
+
+Once again `@nowarn` can be used to fully restore any old behavior
+
+## Alternatives
+
+1) make `runtimeCheck` a method on `Any` that returns the receiver (not inline). The compiler would check for presence of a call to this method when deciding to perform static checking of pattern exhaustivity. This idea was criticised for being brittle with respect to refactoring, or automatic code transformations via macro.
+
+2) `runtimeCheck` should elaborate to code that matches the expected type, e.g. to heal `t: Any` to `Int` when the expected type is `Int`. The problem is that this is not useful for patterns that can not be runtime checked by type alone. Also, it implies a greater change to the spec, because now `runtimeCheck` would have to be specially treated.
+
+## Related work
+
+- [Pre SIP thread](https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/pre-sip-replace-non-sensical-unchecked-annotations/6342)
+- [Scala 3 Reference: Pattern Bindings](https://docs.scala-lang.org/scala3/reference/changed-features/pattern-bindings.html),
+- None of OCaml, Rust, Swift, or Java offer explicit escape hatches for non-exhaustive pattern matches (Haskell does not even warn by default). Instead the user must add a default case, (making it exhaustive) or use the equivalent of `@nowarn` when they exist.
+
+## FAQ
+
+N/A so far.

_sips/sips/unroll-default-arguments-for-binary-compatibility.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+---
+title: SIP-61 - Unroll Default Arguments for Binary Compatibility
+status: under-review
+pull-request-number: 78
+stage: design
+
+---