Suggested improvements to NExpr

[infinisil]

• Encoding that [Binding r] contains static and dynamic attributes, whereas static ones have to have a different key:

  data StaticAttributeValue r = Inherit (Maybe r)
                         | NamedVar [NKeyName r] r
  type StaticAttributes r = Map VarName (StaticAttributeValue r)
  type DynamicAttributes r = [(NDynamicAttrPath r, r)]
  type Bindings r = (StaticAttributes r, DynamicAttributes r)

• Instead of strings being [Antiquoted Text r], they should be

  data Interpolated a s = Interpolated a [(s, a)]
  type String = Interpolated Text r

• NAttrPath should differentiate between ${a}.b.c and a.b.c with 2 different types NStaticAttrPath and NDynamicAttrPath #977
• Instead of function application being NBinary NApp f arg, it should be NApp f arg #1041
• Instead of having NSet bindings and NRecSet bindings, it should be a single NSet rec bindings (first argument indicates it being recursive or not)
• Inherit !(Maybe r) ![NKeyName r] !SourcePos should be Inherit !(Maybe r) ![VarName] !SourcePos #976

Maybe other improvements are possible too. I really dislike how some things are representable using the current one but never occur in parsing Nix.

[Synthetica9]

• Can we also get consistent source positions? Currently some things have their own SourcePos, next to the SrcSpan provided by NExprLocF:

  hnix/src/Nix/Expr/Types.hs

  Lines 179 to 190 in 2f418b2

  	data Binding r
  	= NamedVar !(NAttrPath r) !r !SourcePos
  	-- ^ An explicit naming, such as @x = y@ or @x.y = z@.
  	| Inherit !(Maybe r) ![NKeyName r] !SourcePos
  	-- ^ Using a name already in scope, such as @inherit x;@ which is shorthand
  	-- for @x = x;@ or @inherit (x) y;@ which means @y = x.y;@. The
  	-- unsafeGetAttrPos for every name so inherited is the position of the
  	-- first name, whether that be the first argument to this constructor, or
  	-- the first member of the list in the second argument.
  	deriving (Generic, Generic1, Typeable, Data, Ord, Eq, Functor,
  	Foldable, Traversable, Show, NFData, Hashable)

  Maybe have the annotations be at least parametrised, so we can set them to () when it's convenient?

[jwiegley]

Should NAttrPath take a dynamic boolean argument, rather than two constructors?

[jwiegley]

@infinisil I'm rather open to PRs for these suggestions. Perhaps doing them one at a time would be simplest?

[ryantrinkle]

@Synthetica9 Nix has a primitive that retrieves source location for those things internal to the language, so they are semantically significant. The other source locations are used just for error reporting and such. It may be possible to unify them to some extent, but it's not quite as easy as one would hope.

[sjakobi]

#666 (comment) is somewhat related.

[Anton-Latukha]

Just wanted to mention:

some things are representable ... but never occur in parsing.

Due to Nix paradigms we would never be able to parse everything just by reading the Expr level.

Some things can be made unrepresentable in Expr level, but not all.

To be more concrete - we need to gather examples what is unrepresentable in Nix to unrepresent it.

[Anton-Latukha]

Just wanted to mention:

some things are representable ... but never occur in parsing.

To formulate tersely: Expr may ("if we want") represent only literate Nix grammar. Expr by what it represents should allow any complete Nix grammatically correct schizophasia, well, 'cause schizophasia is still grammatically correct expressions.

Any (majority) of smart constructor logic checking, even as simple mas uniqueness of keys in attrset, - is Eval which is of course before any corporeal Exec.

So the threads talks about grammar strictly.

[Anton-Latukha]

@infinisil

So, 2.5 years in the making. I arrived to it.

The major part of your proposition, several points of it depends on the - that binding key names should differentiate between static & dynamic, and a lot follows from that.
Recently I've made VarName a proper abstraction, so now what asked would be easier.

---

I looked into the suggestion & so far have not understood the vector of them. Well, I understand the direction, I do not understand how abstractions align in the suggestion, there may be a typo around use of NKeyName (since proposition, iiac, is about splitting it into two separate types for Static & Dynamic.)

---

Inherit should be Inherit !(Maybe r) ![VarName] !SourcePos

VarName is an abstraction on Text (formerly was alias):

🅸 ~/s/n/pkgs:master◦>nrg 'inherit.*\$'
pkgs/applications/kde/default.nix
    inherit (srcs.${pname}) src version;

pkgs/stdenv/darwin/default.nix
    inherit (pkgs."${finalLlvmPackages}") compiler-rt;

So, inherit accepts dynamic keys also, they can not be put into the VarName (Text) abstraction, or otherwise someone has some secret insight why it should be so. That one seems false.

---

I would agree with this:

type StaticAttributes r = Map VarName (StaticAttributeValue r)
type DynamicAttributes r = [(NDynamicAttrPath r, r)]

The current is:

hnix/src/Nix/Expr/Types.hs

Lines 289 to 297 in f92a283

	data NKeyName r
	= DynamicKey !(Antiquoted (NString r) r)
	-- ^
	-- > DynamicKey (Plain (DoubleQuoted [Plain "x"])) ~ "x"
	-- > DynamicKey (Antiquoted x) ~ ${x}
	-- > DynamicKey (Plain (DoubleQuoted [Antiquoted x])) ~ "${x}"
	| StaticKey !VarName
	-- ^
	-- > StaticKey "x" ~ x

Separating statics from dynamics is a good idea & is a guide for further improvements.