Hi List, I am working on a Bash config generation system. I've decided to factor out the Bash AST and pretty printer, here in a pre-release state: https://github.com/solidsnack/bash One thing I'd like to support is generic annotations, so that at a future time I can add (and render) comments, mark subscripts with what privilege (package install, sudo) they require or otherwise characterize the script outside its lexical structure. I ended up making my statement type a Functor with a Foldable instance. Given that every statement has an annotation, it seemed better to me to use mutually recursive datatypes, using one datatype to capture "annotatedness", like this: -- From https://github.com/solidsnack/bash/blob/c718de36d349efc9ac073a2c7082742c4560... data Annotated t = Annotated t (Statement t) data Statement t = SimpleCommand Expression [Expression] | ... | IfThen (Annotated t) (Annotated t) | ... I wonder what folks think of this approach? It does mean I end up with all leaf-level annotations being potentially without annotations; this allows for relatively generic definitions, on the one hand; but forces type annotations at the use-site in many cases. It also means I have mutually recursive Functor and Foldable instances. Another option for annotations would be a sort of tree of zippers pointing in to the statement tree; this seems horrible at first glance since it leaves open the question of how the annotations are associated with their nodes in the first place. However, it does have the nice feature of simplifying the type of statements and also is just much more modular feeling. What does the list think? -- Jason Dusek Linux User #510144 | http://counter.li.org/