[418tpot]

I agree the syntax isn't perfect, but in case you're actually confused there's really only 3 places where semicolons go, and I would argue that two of the places make a lot of sense— as a terminator for attribute sets, and a terminator for `let` declarations.

Unfortunately it is also used with the somewhat confusing `with` operator which I personally avoid using. For those of you who aren't familiar, it works similar to the now deprecated javascript `with` statement where `with foo; bar` will resolve to `bar` if it is in scope, otherwise it will resolve to `foo.bar`.

[chriswarbo]

I actually prefer `with`, since it fits better with the language:

- It uses `;` in the same way as `assert`, whereas `let` uses a whole other keyword `in`.

- It uses attrsets as reified/first-class environments, unlike `let`, which lets us do `with foo; ...`.

- Since it uses attrsets, we can use their existing functionality, like `rec` and `inherit`; rather than duplicating it.

I've been using Nix for over a decade (it's even on my phone), and I've never once written a `let`.

(I agree that the shadowing behaviour is annoying, and we're stuck with it for back-compat; but that's only an issue for function arguments and let, and I don't use the latter)

[418tpot]

Interesting, are you saying that instead of reaching for `let foo = bar; in expr` you usually use something like `with { foo = bar; }; expr`?

> Since it uses attrsets, we can use their existing functionality, like `rec` and `inherit`; rather than duplicating it.

`let` supports `inherit`, and is always `rec`. Or is that your point, that it is needlessly duplicated functionality?

[chriswarbo]

Yes and yes :)

Functions with default arguments are also very useful; especially since `nix-build` will call them automatically. Those are "always `rec`" too, which (a) makes them convenient for intermediate values, and (b) provides a fine-grained way to override some functionality. I used this to great effect at a previous employer, for wrangling a bunch of inter-dependent Maven projects; but here's a made-up example:

    {
      # Main project directory. Override to build a different version.
      src ? pkgs.lib.cleanSource ./.
    
      # Take these files from src by default, but allow them to be overridden
    , config ? "${src}/config.json"
    , script ? "${src}/script.sh"
    
      # A couple of dependencies
    , jq ? pkgs.jq
    , pythonEnv ? python3.withPackages choosePyPackages
    , extraDeps ? [] # Not necessary, but might be useful for callers
    
      # Python is tricky, since it bakes all of its libraries into one derivation.
      # Exposing intermediate parts lets us override just the interpreter, or just
      # the set of packages, or both.
    , python3 ? pkgs.python3
    , choosePyPackages ? (p: pythonDeps p ++ extraPythonDeps p)
    , pythonDeps ? (p: [ p.numpy ])
    , extraPythonDeps ? (p: [])  # Again, not necessary but maybe useful
    
      # Most of our dependencies will ultimately come from Nixpkgs, so we should pin
      # a known-good revision. However, we should also allow that to be overridden;
      # e.g. if we want to pass the same revision into a bunch of projects, for
      # consistency.
    , pkgs ? import ./pinned-nixpkgs.nix
    }:
    # Some arbitrary result
    pkgs.writeShellApplication {
      name = "foo";
      runtimeInputs = [ jq pythonEnv ] ++ extraDeps;
      runtimeEnv = { inherit config; };
      text = builtins.readFile script;
    }

[wiktor-k]

> now deprecated javascript `with` statement where `with foo; bar` will resolve to `bar` if it is in scope, otherwise it will resolve to `foo.bar`.

Technically, in JavaScript it's `with (foo) bar`.

Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

[pkulak]

Your p,k,g,s keys must be worn to nubs.