Inlay hints usage

[July541]

In order to prevent spam, I open a thread to discuss about the inlay hint usage in Haskell.

Previous info is here: #2019 (comment)

lsp-3.17 had supported inlay hint, in which can embed some useful info, it wildly used by displaying function parameter names in other languages. But it is not suitable in Haskell since Haskell have a lot of currying, which looks not valid to display parameter name in Haskell.

Sample of inlay hint:

I don't want Haskell missing this straightforward function, so I wrote these to discuss what we can do to use inlay hint best, here are some I'd like:

1. Show type signature for let expressions

f = let g {- inlay hint here, should be `:: Bool` -}= True
     in g

2. Show operator fixity as mentioned in Feature request: Fixity information in hover #2019 (comment)

All these are initial ideas for discussion, feel free to put forward any suggestions:)

[drsooch]

+1 for let bindings.

I'd have to see what the fixity one actually looks like, but in my head it seems like overload.

[pepeiborra]

+1 for let bindings too

Can we use this to show the implicit imports list, instead of a code lens?

[July541]

Can we use this to show the implicit imports list, instead of a code lens?

Not sure, I haven't seen any inlay hint in a new line. But is there any shortcoming for code lens?

[pepeiborra]

The idea is to show the implicit imports list inline, not in a new line. We have wanted this for a while:

#426 (comment)

[michaelpj]

Note that inlay hints aren't supported by the lsp library yet. I'm working on generating the types from the new machine-readable version, which will hopefully include this, but it may be a while.

---

More ideas

Type signatures

Lambda arguments? i.e.

\x {- :: Int -} -> ...

Function arguments? i.e.

foo x {- :: Int -}

(probably not, a bit redundant with the main type signature?)

Bindings in do blocks? i.e.

x {- :: Int -} <- ...

These are all really special cases of "put an inlay hint every time a variable is bound without a type signature", but I think that would probably be too much in many cases. But might be worth trying to see if it's unbearable! Maybe the general case is what we want.

Implicit names

Record wildcards?

x{... {- foo, bar, baz -}}

An explicit imports inlay hint is arguably an example of this!

Misc

Record names in positional record construction?

MyRec {- foo= -} a {- bar= -} b {- baz= -} c

[drsooch]

These are all really special cases of "put an inlay hint every time a variable is bound without a type signature", but I think that would probably be too much in many cases. But might be worth trying to see if it's unbearable! Maybe the general case is what we want.

I can see someone wanting to keep some of the inlay hints but not all (myself included). Is this something we want to allow to be configurable? Or should we aim for a minimum case first (i.e. just let bindings and lambdas for example) and go from there?

[michaelpj]

Ideally we don't configure things too much, but we might want a "noisy" version and a "quiet" version, perhaps.

I think the observation about the general case is more for design thinking: I'm not sure I have a good rationale for why some places that introduce a name without a type signature should get inlay hints and some shouldn't. So what's our heuristic?

[July541]

Agree @michaelpj 's ideas, just one thought, I prefer to show function parameters' name instead of their type. (Although not beautiful to look at)

[July541]

I still believe it's not bad to have more configure, it has little effect for most users(they won't touch these settings)

Here is some configuration(partial) for TypeScript.

---

Here is some configuration(partial) for Rust.

[michaelpj]

Also maybe holes: #3228

[michaelpj]

I think all our code lenses that display signatures should be inlay hints also: #3254

[ozkutuk]

Out of curiosity, what is the current status of the inlay hints support of lsp library?