Design documents

This category contains design documents written by the Lix team, which may or may not be implemented.

regexp engine investigation

nix uses libstdc++'s std::regex. it uses whatever version of libstdc++ the host system has.

which it invokes in both std::regex_replace std::regex_match modes.

nix occasionally uses the flags std::regex::extended and std::regex::icase which determine the available features - it's always either no flags, or both of these together. there's also a couple things that use the flag std::regex::ECMAScript. when the constructor is called without a flags parameter, the flags default to std::regex::ECMAScript (see method signature in C++23 32.7.2), so really we have only two cases.

std::cregex_iterator and std::sregex_iterator are used.

there's a header regex-combinators.hh which defines regex::group and regex::list.... and a couple others that are unused. but those are just trivial textual things, not extensions, so we can ignore the file.

getting the C++ standard

someday when C++23 is official you will be able to pirate the PDF. otherwise, you can clone https://github.com/cplusplus/draft and check out the tag n4950 which is the current formally adopted working draft as of 2024-03-14 and is intended to have the same technical content as the final standard. you can then invoke make in the source subdirectory which will produce std.pdf. you will need LaTeX installed. if you're ever not sure which working draft is the one that became a particular version of the standard, Wikipedia will probably tell you...

(personally I install texlive.combined.scheme-full from nixpkgs on all my machines that have room for it, but this is surely more than necessary, it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy -- Irenes)

chapter 32 is the one that documents regular expressions.

open questions that require reading the standard

required functionality

the extended flag, per the C++ standard, "Specifies that the grammar recognized by the regular expression engine shall be that used by extended regular expressions in POSIX.". it references POSIX, Base Definitions and Headers, Section 9.4.

the ECMAScript flag "Specifies that the grammar recognized by the regular expression engine shall be that used by ECMAScript in ECMA-262, as modified in [section 32.12 of the C++ standard]." it references ECMA-262 15.10. the changes in 32.12 are important and probably do create real compatibility issues for us, though fortunately it's only a single page.

if we complete this chart we can use it to assess which existing engines would meet our needs, or how much of a pain in the ass it would be to make a new one

the columns are the two ways it gets invoked

extended + icase ECMAScript
Syntactic constructs -- --
(TODO: fill in every construct here)
Semantics -- --
Case-insensitivity yes ?
(TODO: fill in other behaviors here)

Dreams

This page documents the dreams of the Lix team. These are features which we have generally not roadmapped yet, and which may not have complete and thoroughly thought-through plans, and which we would like to think about more completely before implementing. We are writing them down publicly so that others can dream with us.

fixing ux

slaying the hydra

these are problems that make hydra sad

Language versioning

This document is extremely a draft. It needs some editing and discussion before it can be made into a useful thing. It's been simply copy pasted out of the pad in its current form.

See also

musings

puck: honestly, having language version as part of a scopedImport-style primop would be funny horrors: we're shitposting about setting language version from the source accessor

horrific writeup

basic mechanism

add a new syntactic element that is only valid at the head of a file and used only to declare language requirements. nix versions that cannot satisfy all requirements must reject this element to situations in which two nix versions parse the same file differently, or even evaluating the same file to different derivation hashes. any kind of comment as used by eg GHC is not viable for nix for this reason.

proposed syntax for the first implementation: use $( $feature: ident )+;

anything ahead of this directive could be either unversioned nix code or versioned nix code (see below for details), but since the directive is only valid at the head of a file or expression this "code" can only be comments. this kind of locks us into supporting the current comment syntax forever, but the comment syntax is rather fine so this won't be a problem.

each feature may declare a syntactical requirement for the file, a semantic requirement, or possible both (cf rust editions, or perl use v<something>).

features may be global, namespaced to their implementations, or live in a reserved experimental namespace an implementation can add to and remove from as it wishes with absolutely no guarantee of future evaluatility.

syntactic features

syntax is entirely local to the file itself and has few to no intercompatibility constraints with other code. a very useful syntax requirement would something like no-url-literals, which might strip the syntactic ability to parse url-like sequences of characters into strings and, rather than nix currently does the experimental feature of the same name simply throwing a parse error, parse them as eg a lambda with a sequence of divisions in its body.

(realistically no-url-literals would not appear in practice, instead it should be implied by use itself since url literals are such an obvious misfeature)

semantic features

semantic features produce evaluation changes that could be achieved any other way. examples of this are:

semantic changes may escape the expression that requires them and usually some of amount of cross-compatibility with other semantic versions must be given. using the same examples as above, considerations can include:

this is in fact a full classification of cross-compatibility issues: side-effects changing, evaluation outputs changing, and evaluation inputs changing. side-effects need not be considered very much since nixlang is supposed to be pure and all side-effects that are not part of the store interface must already be considered incidental. evaluation outputs changing can be handled by optional lint or runtime warnings when a versioned evaluation structure passes a semantic version boundary without being annotated as an intentional behavioral leak. evaluation inputs changing is a non-issue because nix plugins and the ExternalValue infrastructure already make it impossible to rely on the type system being fully specified at the time an expression is written

inter-file inter-actions

by default language features must not be propagated across an unadorned import boundary to retain compatibility with existing nix code (eg nixpkgs, which will not be able to switch for quite some time). in some circumanstances it is however required to propagate language features across imports to provide a consistent and meaningful interface, eg in the case of a hypothetical requiredLanguageFeatures attribute for a flake. to allow for both of these requirements to peacefully coexist we add a new primop:

scopedImportUsing
:: { features ? <current language features> :: AttrSetOf bool
     ## ^ language features as would be specified by `use ...;`.
     ## selecting a default-off feature is achieved by setting its key to `true`,
     ## deselecting a default-on feature is achieve by setting its key to `false`.
     ## nesting is not needed because features are identifiers. future changes to
     ## the use interface may extend the type of this set.
   , newGlobals ? env: env :: AttrSetOf Any -> AttrSetOf Any
     ## ^ function to produce the new global environment. it receives the default globals
     ## set for the target expression language features (as calculated form `features` and
     ## the target `use` clause) and produces a new set.
     ## `scopedImport` behavior is recovered by setting this to `const newEnv`.
   }
-> PathLike
## ^ imported path as in `scopedImport`
-> Any
## ^ import result. may be cached, most immediately using the intransparent internal
## object id of the provided features and the globals set. this mimics the beavior
## or `import` in cppnix

if the imported expression selects a different set of language features the features specified by scopedImportUsing are ignored.

scopedImportUsing is available in the builtins set and crucially, can be replaced. this allows a hypothetical flake implementation to replace both scopedImportUsing and import with its own versions that provide propagation behaviors that might be expected from such a library:

additionally the current language features might be made available through a builtin value languageFeatures by such a replacement of scopedImportUsing.

builtins versioning, global versions

a language feature may add or remove elements of builtins or the global environment. as mentioned earlier this does not pose a large hazard since evaluation is sufficiently unespecified that this must already be expected to happen.

interactions with eg nixpkgs lib

nixpkgs lib (and other libraries) will have to cater to the smallest common denominator when exposing library functions/constants as they do now. if we change a function to have a different prototype and a library reexports it from builtins to its own namespace the language features used by the code importing the library do not matter. to make this problem less unbearable we may want to introduce a concept of library objects and a "use library" directive like eg python from ... import ... that can pass language features down to the library being imported in some way.

as a first approximation is would be sufficient to encourage libraries to version their namespaces in such a way that accessing a namespace that relies on language features not present in the current evaluator will fail to evaluate (eg by providing the library itself as a plain set and each version as an attribute that (lazily) imports the specific version of the library needed to fulfill the requested version).

bad ideas for features to remove/change in the first langver

Feature detection

jade: I think we might want to be able to feature detect certain features, e.g. new builtin args, which can be done without, but we would like to know if they are there.

builtins.nixVersion has been defanged, which means that an alternate cross impl compatible mechanism needs to be created.

Minimally thought-through proposal

builtins.features is an attribute set, where individual attribute names are exposed with the value true if they are implemented by a given implementation.

Attribute names are of the format:

"domainname.feature", for example, "systems.lix.somefeature".

Docs rewrite plans

Here, for now (public edit link): https://pad.lix.systems/lix-docs-planning

Nix lang v2

The Nix language unfortunately is full of little and big design accidents. Only so much can be fixed without breaking backwards compatibility.

Our goal is to design an improved Nix language revision, working title "Nix 2". To keep the scope manageable, the first iteration of language improvements will be restricted to be mostly backwards compatible and only require minimal migration effort. This allows us to test the process on a smaller scale, as well as allows us to get the quick and easy improvements out as soon as possible for others to use.

Join the discussion on Matrix: #nix-lang2:lix.systems

The rough action plan is:

  1. Fork the grammar and gate its usage behind a feature flag.
  2. Use the new grammar as a playground to experiment and implement fixes and improvements to the language, free of any constraints of backwards compatibility.
  3. Figure out language versioning and prepare interoperability.
  4. Provide a migration path, stabilize the new language, and make it available to users.

Initial language changes

Fixing floats

Grammar: All floats must have a digit before the .. This is a hard requirement for making some of the other proposed syntax changes parse unambiguously in the first place.

Moreover, floating point semantics are currently broken in several ways. They need to strictly follow IEE754 double semantics instead.

Given that such a switch is not easy to make in a safe way, as an intermediate solution all floating point operations should be forbidden, effectively making floating point values opaque to the language.

Set slicing

Partially adapted from https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/110.

Sets can be sliced using set.[key1, key2] and set.{key1, key2}. The first returns a projection of the listed keys into a list, the second one a subset. All keys must be identifiers (or string identifiers), scoped to the attribute set.

[TBD: it is unclear as to whether interpolation is useful and how easy it is to implement] Identifiers may be interpolated: set.[key1, ${key2}] is equivalent to [ set.key1, set.${key2} ], set.{key1, ${key2}} is equivalent to { key1 = set.key1; ${key2} = set.${key2}; }.

Slicing into lists is a replacement for using with:

dependencies = python.pkgs.[
    arabic-reshaper
    babel
    beautifulsoup4
    bleach
    celery
    chardet
    cryptography
];

List and Set unpacking

In a list, elements which are lists themselves can be unpacked with the * operator. They will be concatenated in-place. ["hello", *list, "world"] is equivalent to ["hello"] ++ list ++ ["world"]

This can be easily combined with set slicing. The operator precedence facilitates patterns like the following:

  configureFlags = [
    "--without-ensurepip"
    "--with-system-expat"
    *(optionals (!(stdenv.isDarwin && pythonAtLeast "3.12")) [
      #  ./Modules/_decimal/_decimal.c:4673:6: error: "No valid combination of CONFIG_64, CONFIG_32 and _PyHASH_BITS",
      # https://hydra.nixos.org/build/248410479/nixlog/2/tail
      "--with-system-libmpdec",
    ])
    *(optionals (openssl != null) [
      "--with-openssl=${openssl.dev}",
    ])
  ];

In a set, one can unpack elements like this:

let baz = { bar = "foo"; }; in { foo = "bar"; *baz.{bar}; }

This combines well with optionalAttrs:

{
  meta = with lib; {
    maintainers = with maintainers; [ matthewbauer qyliss ];
    platforms = platforms.unix;
    license = licenses.bsd2;
  };

  HOST_SH = stdenv'.shell;

  *lib.optionalAttrs stdenv'.hasCC {
    # TODO should CC wrapper set this?
    CPP = "${stdenv'.cc.targetPrefix}cpp";
  };
  
  *attrs;

  *lib.optionalAttrs (attrs.headersOnly or false) {
    installPhase = "includesPhase";
    dontBuild = true;
  };

  # Files that use NetBSD-specific macros need to have nbtool_config.h
  # included ahead of them on non-NetBSD platforms.
  postPatch = lib.optionalString (!stdenv'.hostPlatform.isNetBSD) ''
    set +e
    grep -Zlr "^__RCSID
    ^__BEGIN_DECLS" $COMPONENT_PATH | xargs -0r grep -FLZ nbtool_config.h |
        xargs -0tr sed -i '0,/^#/s//#include <nbtool_config.h>\n\0/'
    set -e
  '' + attrs.postPatch or "";

}

It also allows to have "local" let bindings for just some of the keys, without having to move them out of the entire attrset:

{
  key1 = "value1";
  *let
    stuff = "foo";
  in
  {
    inherit stuff;
    key2 = stuff;
  };
}

As with convential set declaration, duplicate keys are not allowed.

Note that the pattern of inherit (foo) bar baz; is equivalent to *foo.{bar, baz};.

Pipe operator function application: |>

This is being worked on in RFC 148

In nixpkgs, there is the lib.pipe function which will allows to write g f a as pipe a [f g]. Especially with deep nested and complicated data transformations, it makes the code flow from left to right and thus easier to read. Sadly, it is under-used because many people are not aware of it.

The fundamental problem it tries to solve though is that function calls are prefix, i.e. that a data processing chain with multiple entries is read from right to left. (Or, when adding parentheses, from the inside to the out side.)

Therefore, we introduce the |> operator. a |> f |> g is equivalent to g(f(a)).

List indexing

Introduce list.INDEX on lists as syntax sugar for builtins.elemAt list index. list.${index} interpolation for dynamic variables also works like it does for attribute sets. To avoid type ambiguities at runtime, ident.${expr} is reserved for dynamic attribute access only, dynamic list indexing still requires using builtins.elemAt

Optional: We could even introduce .last .tail and .length as attributes. Need to think about that. Is a bad idea because of dynamic typing.

Function list destructuring

The same way as function arguments can be destructured into an attrset with {…}, it should also work with lists. Some restrictions:

This, together with list indexing syntax, will make tuple-style code constructs a first-class citizen of the language. Replacing nameValuePair alone is expected to give significant performance gains (short lists are heavily optimized in the evaluator).

Disallow inner-attribute merging

Nix has syntax sugar for merging attrsets within attrset declarations: { a = {}; a.b = "hello"; } will be fused into { a = { b = "hello"; }; } at parse time.

This feature, only rarely used, does not compose well with other features like rec attrsets, leading to unintuitive semantics and potential foot guns: https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/issues/350, https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/6251, https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/9020, https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/11268, https://md.darmstadt.ccc.de/xtNP7JuIQ5iNW1FjuhUccw#inherit-from-scopes-differently-than-inherit

Since these problems would be deeply aggravated by the new set unpacking syntax (defined below), it is best to completely remove this feature altogether. Since it only is convenience syntax sugar, no replacement syntax is necessary.

Expand inherit syntax

The inherit syntax is adapted to be both more powerful and more consisten with the slicing syntax. The inherit (from) is made redundant and deprecated for removal in a future language revision. Inherit can also be used outside of attrsets and let bindings now, and will behave as if it was in a let binding.

inherit lib.{mkIf, types};
inherit {
  lib.mkif,
  types.{attrsOf, listOf, string}
};
# Mixing old with new style syntax: Do we want to allow this?
inherit
  lib.mkif
  types.{attrsOf, listOf, string}
;
# This only makes sense within attrsets really
inherit foo;

Proper keywords for null, true and false

I don't know why these are builtins instead of keywords but at this point I assume it's because it was faster to implement.

Proper syntax nodes for all arithmetic expressions

No more __sub and __lessThan. These had no reason but laziness to exist in the first place.

? and or operator

All line endings must be \n

The current handling of \r is so jank that we'd better do without.

CRLF line endings are allowed within the file for Windows compat, but in strings the line endings get consistently normalized to LF only.

All files must be valid UTF-8 text

The world runs on UTF-8, and most tools these days expect UTF-8 encoded input by default. There's no reason to allow other encodings or invalid byte sequences.

Sane escape sequences for strings

Indented strings

Don't strip indentation of first line

The current behavior is just weird, both for single-line strings (commonly used for unquoted ") and multi-line strings. The new behavior is also what Haskell does (in its new multiline strings proposal).

Indented strings work with tabs

Programming languages may be opinionated, but making some features work only with space indentation is crossing a line.

Tabs and spaces can be mixed as part of the string's content, but not for the string's indentation. Indentation is calculated based on the longest common prefix.

Old cruft to remove

https://wiki.lix.systems/link/21#bkmrk-bad-ideas-for-featur

Remove unquoted URLs

DSL or not, you'll survive typing those two additional extra characters.

Remove let {} syntax

And also the special body attribute.

__override special attribute

No more magic attributes please. __functor is already bad enough.

Fix tokenization rules

https://md.darmstadt.ccc.de/xtNP7JuIQ5iNW1FjuhUccw?view=#token-boundaries-aren%E2%80%99t-real-and-will-hurt-you-cf-nix-iceberg

Status: Partially implemented in https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/1984

Autocaller must die

Status: Not implemented

wtf?

❯  nix-build --expr '[[[ ({a}: [a]) ]]]' --arg a 'with import <nixpkgs> {}; hello' --no-link
fetching path input 'path:/nix/store/nyysli8lhjf03jgyvrf7mlxrlgnqn9qp-source'
/nix/store/kwmqk7ygvhypxadsdaai27gl6qfxv7za-hello-2.12.1

Future language changes

Some changes to the syntax would make large chunks of existing code invalid. These need to be postponed until proper versioning and migration tooling have been figured out.

Comma separated lists (confidence: high)

Currently list items are space separated. This has two major drawbacks:

  1. This is inconsistent with most other language syntax features, which use , or ; as item separator.
  2. Not having them requires using parentheses around function calls in lists. Those are currently easy to forget, causing confusing type issues for beginners. (This would be less of an issue if we had a type system that could catch the mistake early on …)

Function declaration (confidence: low)

NUL bytes must be supported within strings

Status: Blocked on rewriting the garbage collector to be compatible

0-terminated strings were a mistake, and we should not make any concessions in the language to implementations who use them. Especially when they're buggy.

Paths

Comments

While we are touching the syntax, let's leave some space here to discuss code comments.

TODO

Flake stabilisation proposal

Preface

FIXME: this page hasn't been reviewed by Lix Core team members, so it's effectively a draft/suggestion/pre-RFC/dream, whatever. It's not an official design document, but thought has been put into making it good, anyway.

Problem Statement

Flakes are a mess. They are extremely popular (so it's very painful to discard them), but they are also deeply flawed in so many ways, and their compat story is non-existent. Let's go through a few things that are traditionally associated with flakes, but they don't need to be.

On the last 2 points, see this: https://samuel.dionne-riel.com/blog/2024/05/07/its-not-flakes-vs-channels.html

Overall, flakes did too much at once. We can sort those out one by one. Deprecating NIX_PATH and channels would be a bit tricky, but we can try to re-use flake registries for the same functionality.

Also, flakes have a very bad backwards-compatibility story. Worse than that, we are a CppNix fork, so we want to provide a migration path for a reasonable amount of time. CppNix also completely doesn't have forward compatibility. This means that doing any changes to the flake.nix or to flake.lock will break flakes for CppNix users. This is really bad, it essentially means we're removing flakes outright, so this isn't something that we want to do.

With those preparations out of the way, we can now get to the flakes.

Flake Components

Flakes themselves have many moving parts.

The most cursed part is how tightly connected all of that is. flake.lock records the inputs to builtins.fetchTree. These inputs are parsed from flake.nix. The real abstraction here is inputs URL parser. Everything else is implementation details that leak out into public interfaces.

So the situation is tricky. Code changes leak out, there are no useful versioning mechanisms, we need to make changes in such a way as to not break upstream, and the adoption is large enough that we don't want to break things. But thankfully, there is a way to deal with it, largely inspired but Opentofu's approach.

The Plan

Stage 0: Fork the Interfaces

First, we must fork the interfaces. Instead of having ossified flake.nix and flake.lock interfaces that we have no control over - we fork them into different files. Naming is TBD, but let's use flake.lix and flake.lick in this discussion. More specifically, the procedure looks like this:

This completely changes the compatibility story, because we no longer have to think about upstream usage: we only read, never modify the files the upstream uses. Together with adding sane versioning, we can isolate the versioning to just our project, and make changes (including backwards-incompatible ones) in a sane manner.

Stage 1: Eating Spaghetti

Next, we need to decouple implementation, flake.lix and flake.lick from each other. For the latter two, we already have separate version on "manifest" file and the lockfile; it's a good start. Let's discuss what needs to be done to unveil this spaghetti:

Stage 2: Improving the Interfaces

There's a lot that can be done here. Cross-compilation, version resolution, newer fields, and more - all of that belongs to this stage.

Stage 3: Maintenance

This path is backwards-compatible throughout, so we can maintain an upgrade path without much issue. We can have a directory with subdirectories for each major version. Those subdirectories will also handle upgrading the lockfile; then, we'll always have a path to upgrade from CppNix flakes to Lix flakes: you just execute all of the existing upgrades in order.

Truly backwards-incompatible changes would be adding absolutely necessary metadata, without which the previous version is useless. npm has this: their oldest lockfile (you can call it "v0") didn't have a version field, and it also didn't record checksums. It simply doesn't contain any metadata that better lockfiles do, so the only way to move forward is to extract whatever you can from it, and generate a newer-version lockfile from scratch with that data.

As long as we only need the version and checksum (which seems to be the case), the only source of breaking changes I see is security vulnerabilities. If e.g. NAR hashing is proven to be vulnerable - it's probably for the best to not rely on the already existing hashes at all.

Notes

This plan doesn't have to be executed as sequentially as it's described. Really, we can have something like a from-scratch rewrite for flakes and include it in the first flake.lix+flake.lick versions. Or we could only add the versioning code. Or we could add versioning and version resolution, or versioning and cross-compilation, or literally anything else, as long as versioning is definitely present.

Appendix A: Flakes are a broken abstraction

Some parts of this were already mentioned, but flakes are pretty broken on fundamental levels. The lockfile essentially containing arguments for a C++ function are an example of that. This isn't an abstraction pretty much by definition - it does not abstract away the details. A good example of a lockfile is version = 3 for Cargo:

[[package]]
name = "anstyle-wincon"
version = "3.0.3"
source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
checksum = "61a38449feb7068f52bb06c12759005cf459ee52bb4adc1d5a7c4322d716fb19"
dependencies = [
 "anstyle",
 "windows-sys 0.52.0",
]

[[package]]
name = "anstyle"
version = "1.0.7"
source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
checksum = "038dfcf04a5feb68e9c60b21c9625a54c2c0616e79b72b0fd87075a056ae1d1b"


[[package]]
name = "windows-sys"
version = "0.52.0"
source = "registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index"
checksum = "282be5f36a8ce781fad8c8ae18fa3f9beff57ec1b52cb3de0789201425d9a33d"
dependencies = [
 "windows-targets 0.52.5",
]

...

We more or less have the source (as bad as it is implemented in flakes), and we have checksum (which is NAR hash) and name - but we are missing the version abstraction. There's some complexity to unpack here (for example, it isn't trivial to say what "version" means for a tarball or a filesystem path), but flakes don't even try - they just completely ignore the need for this abstraction, and use C++ implementation details instead.

Another issue is the general confusion about what flakes are supposed to be, and how Nix plays into that. Nix is a lot of things, but the way it ended up working out is that Nix is a builder abstraction: you use Nix to build packages, and the packages may have dependencies, and yadda yadda. But because Nix is so general, it can be used to build a "meta-package" of all "installed packages", and you can also use it to build OS configs, so you can essentially build a system meta-package. The whole NixOS system is just a big meta-package that consists of other packages.

This is a blessing and a curse: expressing the entire system as one package is cool and has its advantages, but this is also a very hacky way to use the build system that is Nix. It's like using the Makefile to configure your system. CppNix developed a lot of stuff to keep this approach going: channels, NIX_PATH, nixos-rebuild scripts, nix-env and other things are all used to make the experience more tolerable. So it's a lot of hacks on top of a rather quirky way to use the build system. The biggest example on how it manifests is NixOS configuration: we use it to create different build manifests for the resulting system, and we don't have other ways to interact with the system, like a package manager. This is a tough place to be in: the NixOS approach has a lot of really good properties, but it's also inherently limited because the build system is used as a configuration engine and a package manager.

Flakes are confused and stupid because they try to be a package manager for Nix, but they are a shitty package manager, and they also don't even try to resolve many of the hard questions that arise from using Nix itself as a package manager. They don't have a concept of "libraries", so everyone still uses Nixpkgs lib. They don't have version resolution, or a concept of versions. They don't really integrate with Nix profiles, they don't integrate with NixOS, they don't draw good boundaries between what different units of NixLang code do: provide library functions, create packages, create configuration, or whatever else.

There are only three package manager things that flakes actually tried to do: it's installables/runnables abstraction (just barely counts), manifest+lockfile usage (the idea itself is good but impl is awful), and defining a schema. Everything else doesn't address the issue at hand in the slightest: some of the ideas are good and should be decoupled from flakes, and some of the ideas are awful.

Regarding installables/runnables: it's a step in the right direction for drawing boundaries between packages, libraries and configs. But the way it's implemented is also bad. The definition for installables is a huge nothing-burger: basically, an "installable" is a store path or a thing that resolves into a store path (this is more or less what's said in the glossary). This definition gives you exactly nothing, and reminds of a horribly ill-defined "derivation" stuff ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). The actually useful thing here is "runnables", which are things you can nix run. It's also barely defined (mostly just using the store path and appending /bin/<name> to it lol) and absolutely isolated from all of the Nixpkgs and NixOS work, so it ends up being completely useless in practice.

This document mainly goes over how to unbreak the flakes and make them work at all, but creating coherent abstractions on top of the unbroken flakes is a whole other dimension of pain and integration work. In practice, integrating flakes into Nix properly will end up requiring "owning the stack" or close to it: being very free to refactor and unbreak many hacks in Nixpkgs and NixOS.

Appendix B: Some thoughts on post-stabilisation world

Something that would make a lot of sense is drawing further boundaries between units of NixLang code. Flakes would be a NixLang package manager, and like there is a distinction between "binaries" and "libraries" in proper programming languages like Rust, there would be "flake types" for NixLang. Some easy examples include: "NixLang library", "Nix plugin", "configuration", "package manifest", "binary/runnable", "generic package". Just using those "flake types" for manifests doesn't do much good: there needs to be tight integration with Nixpkgs. In fact, Nixpkgs might start composing flakes instead of just NixLang code directories: this might be a great change for the better.

To give some examples on how integrating flakes would look like, we can take inspiration from dreams page. Let's discuss flake-related items:

So basically, flakes subsystem needs to be an actual package manager with actual units (flakes). Then, flakes will actually make sense and be good, and we'll finally be able to have nice things, like not having Nixpkgs be a gigantic fs tree with dubious abstractions. I mean, pointing to Rust again (because it's good): Cargo doesn't just operate on fs trees and let you handle the rest like an old-school thing like Nix forces you to do, Cargo has many abstractions to decouple fs tree from things you care about: workspaces, crates, modules, etc. When flakes become Cargo and give us proper composition - we'll know we've done a good job.

Observability and Protocol Design

jade: I think that we should start protocol design by thinking about who needs what information, which is most cleanly hit by looking at how observability architecture looks. Let's get cracking on what observability we need/want in Lix.

Context

Old profiling pad for the Nix language: https://pad.lix.systems/lix-profiling. This might want/need to be a different system than the overall observability architecture since it affects the evaluator primarily and has specialized needs (e.g. high performance).

Old protocol investigation pad: https://pad.lix.systems/lix-protocol-investigation

Discussion

Let's have this discussion in a pad here so we can have good live editing: https://pad.lix.systems/lix-observability

Replacement CLI design & Profiles

Draft pads:

Nix bootstrapping

Pad:

https://pad.lix.systems/VjA-WMSQS42dh-ghL98Uow

Roadmap 2026

Lix's roadmap for 2026

IFD Improvement Discussion

Pad:

https://pad.lix.systems/Xd5Xyt5cToyYxIv-lNdehA