Hi all, A few years ago I wrote a tool (under a pseudonym) that uses the ghc api. I have not been working in Haskell and I've found that it's bitrotted since the 8.10.x series that I was most recently using. The impact of refactors to the ghc codebase have hit me really badly, and with the help of Sylvain, I've been able to get it to the point where it compiles with 9.0.2 and 9.2.7. I'm currently working my way through 9.4.5 support but this is becoming extremely time consuming and draining, so I'm asking for help from anybody who has been involved in these refactors if they could help further. There's only so much git pickaxe can help with, when functions names, types and parameters are moved around in a way that is hard to keep track of. Especially with the changes impacting the way packages, units, errors, and compiler invocation all work. The code is at https://gitlab.com/tseenshe/hsinspect (and also on hackage) and I'm doing all my work-in-progress under the ghc9 branch. As a follow up question, I have a few ideas for how this level of disruption to my codebase could be avoided and I was hoping to get some thoughts on it: 1. some programming language communities have a "community build" that is periodically built by snapshots of the compiler. This allows unexpected regressions to be caught early in the dev cycle and would allow the author of refactor changes to send a courtesy patch to keep the broken code running if the change is intended to be kept in the compiler. I'd like to propose hsinspect for such a community build. 2. propose that my code is merged into the ghc api, so that my code becomes trivial to maintain from that moment on because I've handed the responsibility on, very explicitly, to whoever wishes to make breaking changes in the compiler. I'd like to propose adding all my modules (minus the compiler plugin and machine readable format stuff) to the compiler code tree. are either of these options realistic? I don't think I would be interested in using Haskell anymore if my tooling stopped working: I've invested so much time and energy into it at this point that to start again or have to set my tools aside would be too much of a disincentive. I really love the Haskell language, so I hope that this is not the case. For those interested further in my tool and/or helping... As a quick architectural overview (motivations and goals are described well enough in the README to not need repeating): my tool is very simple: - the plugin is a ghc compiler plugin, all it does is dump out the flags that the batch compiler was invoked with. I understand that HLS has its own solution these days that involves extracting this information from the build tool, but I still prefer getting it from the compiler because it's simple, build tool agnostic, and guaranteed to be correct. I spent many years doing it the build tool route for Scala tooling and I think that was a mistake. - the runtime binary, which is user-invoked (rarely) during their dev cycle, and has several features. This binary is able parse the user's Haskell file's pragmas, on top of the flags that the compiler was invoked with, to extract the exact dflags to use for any interactive compiler usage. The specific features are then: - find all the packages that are depended upon by the home unit. Go and find all the symbols contained therein, including their type signatures. Dump it all out to a machine readable format. - parse just the imports section of the current file to extract the full list of imports in use. Then go and lookup all the symbol names that it implies and their package name, and dump it all out to a machine readable format. - parse the file, find all the data types that the user has defined, and output it into a simpler AST that is designed for code navigation and boilerplate generation tools, comments are not preserved. An example tool that can use this is at https://gitlab.com/tseenshe/boilerplate (and on hackage) On top of these machine readable files I have Emacs tooling that can provide me with all the semantic code editor support that I need, and leaves the door open for some things I haven't implemented yet (such as Hoogle like search within the project and dependencies). Code for the Emacs stuff is at https://gitlab.com/tseenshe/haskell-tng.el under the haskell-tng-hsinspect.el file The approach has some limitations, for example I cannot support RecordDotSyntax because completing on a dot would mean knowing the type under the dot. I also wrote an LSP so that my VSCode colleagues could use it too. Everybody that used it with me was free to use HIE (so called at the time) if they wished. Those of us who used hsinspect preferred it because it's basically zero overhead and is therefore really kind on CPU, RAM and battery life. -- Best regards, Sam