haskell.nix VS ghc-proposals

I'm not a great haskeller but I found haskell.nix better for Haskell projects, like the commenter on Discourse suggested. I've had a few issued regarding package versions with nixpkgs that haskell.nix solved.

FWIW, there's also libraries like haskell.nix that solve the caching problem.

I would try haskell.nix.

If you want to hurt your brain, check out haskell.nix. That's some good stuff right there ^^

The haskell.nix framework is good for this.

One cool thing is that this will enable GHC builds using ucrt instead of vscrt in the future. Concretely, together with NixOS/nixpkgs#171418 and its follow-up NixOS/nixpkgs#173498), this will e.g. allow haskell.nix to upgrade to a newer wine pin for TH cross compilation: https://github.com/input-output-hk/haskell.nix/blob/dd13e822529ae5342494969bce8a457522a60100/overlays/wine.nix

I've been using IOHK's alternative infrastructure for this reason. It has its quirks but I've been happier with it. Before that I think I was using developPackage from the nixpkgs haskell tooling which had some introspection ability. You may consider trying that out. But as I remember this will not abide by your version bounds.

There's a lot to like here. Alas, despite minimal dependencies, terminfo is somehow uniquely problematic in haskell.nix.

If you are somewhat comfortable with nix: https://github.com/input-output-hk/haskell.nix supports GHCJS 8.10.x (in particular 8.10.7).

This is really just a matter of how much syntax sugar you want to implement. Idris has this already, and there’s a proposal to add it to Haskell too [0]. But none of this changes the core properties of the system which make it monadic.

[0] https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/issues/527

> I think Haskell needs a way to graduate (or retire) language extensions

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601

Additionally, while this proposal is focused on the simple implementation and so in the current proposal or patterns do not bind any variables as per #522, if we do get settled on syntax and then later wish to expand to allow binding variables as in #43, then the syntax is again clean and discoverable.

Yeah, a relatively natural thing would be to be able to opt-in to having the HasField instances be available in all contexts. The (not yet implemented, but accepted) "Modifiers" GHC proposal might be nice for that.

The local modules proposal imo is excellent as-is.

Why would you drop TypeFamilies? It seems fairly popular, given that it was just one vote short of getting added to GHC2021. Do you consider it a less-ideal compromise, that is subsumed by your second proposal (Core with GRTT)?

as syntax is contentious a topic as ever, David (the main proposal author) and I would like to invite you to give your input on https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/585, where we propose to change the syntax of the accepted proposal #522 introducing Or patterns. In particular, we'd like to know

This looks great, congratulations on completing it! I assume you didn’t get an opportunity to evaluate the delimited continuations based eff library? It would’ve been nice to see Cont included as one of the effects covered, though perhaps not available in all the systems you looked at? Maybe some future work.

I do hope qualified exports are available someday: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/283

Right. Being able to disable "custom type warnings" at use sites was part of an earlier proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/454) but it ended up being shelved.