Mario

https://www.informatik.uni-marburg.de/~rendel/unparse/rendel10invertible.pdf

https://old.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/esbqvr/haskell_version_of_pythons_construct_library_for/ffy2y5u/

It's missing at least one implementation, namely [construct](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/construct) which I recently published.

> For example, would the `dhall` command-line tool and the language server need a special "include `Text` built-ins" mode? If they did, people might just enable the relevant flags all...

The nice thing about the built-in type route is that the combinators can be designed to fit Dhall expressions. The example above, say, could be written as > ```haskell >...

> This means that users would no longer be able to validate ahead of time that their configuration file was valid. Do you mean the file with the parser definition...

Yes, except it would be more like `Grammar/literal : Text → Grammar ()`.

One solution would be a `Grammar/fix` combinator: ```haskell let JSONGrammar = { array : Grammar [Value], object : Grammar (Map Text Value), value : Grammar Value, string : Grammar Text,...

On a different topic, I was playing with an XML representation in Dhall. The following is a valid expression, you can play with it: ```Haskell let Text/concat : List Text...

> For me that's an argument for allowing Text manipulation always. Not necessarily. We could preserve the spirit of this proposal (*i.e.*, pushing the text manipulation to the edges of...