Nicholas Wolverson

Started separating the purerl backend to a separate backend executable rather than a compiler fork. Working great so far Some thoughts * Wonder if a command based CLI (like `purs`...

1. Problem in the above scheme, optparse-applicative (which I'm using for argument parsing, same as purs and spago) doesn't support optional values for parameters like `--run [Main.main]`. I'd suggest splitting...

> I guess $BACKEND run and $BACKEND build would be the to sub-commands? That would be my suggestion - at least right now, my mental model is that "$BACKEND" and...

I've passed having an opinion on the CLI - I think I stated my thoughts at the time - but if we can make a decision I can implement it...

I think the fact that `.psc-package` is keyed on only the `set` and not in any way the `source` may lead to a bunch of the confusing errors, if that...

The machinery around #3915 (and specifically the expander in the optimizer) should make this fairly straightforward, I accidentally implemented this for purerl when integrating that change. Edit: Actually not quite...

For a while I've thought that this would come naturally if we move to the LSP directly in `purs ide` - but maybe ala that range suggestion an interim step...

I don't think there is, as there is no real distinction between error and warning - they are raised in a different way, rather than having errorness/warningness built into the...

I think one needs to be a little careful with the definition of "JS-specific" here. There are optimisations that are certainly JS-specific (eg tied to the specifics of the generated...

IME on larger projects the rebuild can be not *so* fast that you'd really want to apply 20 suggestions in order and rebuild in between each of them - though...