Torsten Schmits

@Nisarg1112 partially, in #120, but there's some work to be done before merging that PR and some follow-up work for fine-tuning comments.

@Nisarg1112 optimistically I would say two weeks, but if you're a dependent library author you can help speed up the process by giving feedback [on discourse](https://discourse.haskell.org/t/survey-for-users-of-the-tree-sitter-haskell-grammar/9153) 😄

if this is still broken you're likely using a pre-#120 version. If that's not the case, please post some example code

According to https://pypi.org/project/tree-sitter-languages/, the latest release is from February, so it definitely won't contain the fix for this

Thanks! Fixed it [upstream](https://github.com/tek/tree-sitter-haskell/pull/16).

weird! must be a side effect of multi-way if layouts, since the same doesn't work for the expression after `then`... I pushed a fix to my [dev repo](https://github.com/tek/tree-sitter-haskell) for now;...

I think the trade-off that motivated the current structure is that the tree should be as flat as possible while allowing all interesting constructs to be queried. Of course this...

The primary, necessitating, reason that both `let` and `do` have a wrapping node is that they are part of sum types in the grammar – either `expression` for `let_in` and...

The generated C file needs to be checked in, see [this discussion](https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/730). Since this grammar is extraordinarily complex, the accumulated size of the parser sources is substantial. Maybe it would...

if you're doing that, you can also run `git clone --depth 1` to get a repo that only contains HEAD