| 5 Jun 2021 |
 sterni (he/him) | well it wouldn't have the discussed scoping issue | 17:05:26 |
 maralorn | toonn: Because it guarantees that a b come actually from lib.maintainers. | 17:05:46 |
| sterni (he/him) | but I'm still sticking with [ lib.maintainers.a lib.maintainers.b] tbh | 17:05:48 |
 toonn | Wait, with doesn't shadow? | 17:06:23 |
| maralorn | toonn: Nope, it doesn‘t. | 17:06:31 |
| sterni (he/him) | it does not | 17:06:30 |
 Las | If it did that would be horrible | 17:06:36 |
| sterni (he/him) | well both solutions to the issue are kinda bad tbh | 17:06:53 |
| Las | let x = y; in with z; [x] would have a different meaning depending on what z contains | 17:07:07 |
| sterni (he/him) | the root problem is that as soon as with is involved you can never statically reason about bindings unfortunately | 17:07:17 |
| maralorn | And even if it did. I also want to have assurance that I didn‘t accidentally pick an attribute that does not exist in `lib.maintainers | 17:07:25 |
| Las | the root problem is that nix is untyped | 17:07:28 |
| maralorn | * And even if it did. I also want to have assurance that I didn‘t accidentally pick an attribute that does not exist in lib.maintainers. | 17:07:30 |
| toonn | The types aren't even the biggest problem here. Nix needs better scoping primitives. | 17:08:20 |
| maralorn | maralorn sets the topice to: „Welcome to the Nix & Haskell channel. Days since someone demanded static typing in Nix: 0" | 17:09:27 |
| maralorn | * maralorn sets the topic to: „Welcome to the Nix & Haskell channel. Days since someone demanded static typing in Nix: 0" | 17:09:37 |
 fgaz | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
it does not Whatt‽ isn't that the opposite of basically every ml-style language? | 17:25:35 |
| fgaz | I always assumed it shadowed | 17:25:46 |
| maralorn | fgaz: There is an issue about that and Eelcos reasoning why it does that is actually quite convincing. | 17:26:26 |
| sterni (he/him) | the correct answer is ofc that with was a bad idea in the first place ;) | 17:26:53 |
| maralorn | I think the main advantage of with not shadowing is, that you can never break code by introducing a new value into the withed attrset. | 17:27:25 |
| fgaz | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
fgaz: There is an issue about that and Eelcos reasoning why it does that is actually quite convincing. Do you have a link? | 17:28:14 |
| maralorn | Sadly I don‘t and with is a terrible word to look for in an issues tracker. | 17:29:22 |
| maralorn | wow. Nix has 100 open issues assigned to peti.^^ | 17:30:18 |
| maralorn | (ofc I am wildely exagerating it’s actually only 98.) | 17:30:46 |
| Las | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
aeson should already be compiled I'm pretty sure nix build github:NixOS/nixpkgs?rev=7191381b24b511017207205e2c8625a91ccea5cf#legacyPackages.aarch64-linux.haskell.packages.ghc901.aeson builds it locally for me | 20:02:59 |
| Las | It's this commit: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/7191381b24b511017207205e2c8625a91ccea5cf | 20:03:21 |
| maralorn | Las: Hm, okay. sterni (he/him) the problem is: We don‘t have a ghc9 cabal2nix job. So we have nothing with a distribution-nixpkgs dependency. | 20:07:52 |
| maralorn | I guess we could/should introduce that job anyways? | 20:09:34 |
| maralorn | We could actually consider building either mergeable or even maintained for ghc9 … | 20:10:07 |
