[418tpot]

I agree the syntax isn't perfect, but in case you're actually confused there's really only 3 places where semicolons go, and I would argue that two of the places make a lot of sense— as a terminator for attribute sets, and a terminator for `let` declarations.

Unfortunately it is also used with the somewhat confusing `with` operator which I personally avoid using. For those of you who aren't familiar, it works similar to the now deprecated javascript `with` statement where `with foo; bar` will resolve to `bar` if it is in scope, otherwise it will resolve to `foo.bar`.

[chriswarbo]

I actually prefer `with`, since it fits better with the language:

- It uses `;` in the same way as `assert`, whereas `let` uses a whole other keyword `in`.

- It uses attrsets as reified/first-class environments, unlike `let`, which lets us do `with foo; ...`.

- Since it uses attrsets, we can use their existing functionality, like `rec` and `inherit`; rather than duplicating it.

I've been using Nix for over a decade (it's even on my phone), and I've never once written a `let`.

(I agree that the shadowing behaviour is annoying, and we're stuck with it for back-compat; but that's only an issue for function arguments and let, and I don't use the latter)

[418tpot]

Interesting, are you saying that instead of reaching for `let foo = bar; in expr` you usually use something like `with { foo = bar; }; expr`?

> Since it uses attrsets, we can use their existing functionality, like `rec` and `inherit`; rather than duplicating it.

`let` supports `inherit`, and is always `rec`. Or is that your point, that it is needlessly duplicated functionality?

[wiktor-k]

> now deprecated javascript `with` statement where `with foo; bar` will resolve to `bar` if it is in scope, otherwise it will resolve to `foo.bar`.

Technically, in JavaScript it's `with (foo) bar`.

Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

[pkulak]

Your p,k,g,s keys must be worn to nubs.