doomemacs/modules/lang/purescript/packages.el

;; -*- no-byte-compile: t; -*-
;;; lang/purescript/packages.el

;; As far as I can tell, at the moment, flycheck-purescript does not work well
;; due to expecting the compiler to be psc rather than purs. However, one of
;; purescript-mode or psc-ide seems to handle flycheck, so it might be
;; unnecessary altogether.
;;(package! flycheck-purescript)

(package! psc-ide)
(package! purescript-mode)
lang/purescript: first attempt 2017-05-21 12:09:23 +08:00			`;; -- no-byte-compile: t; --`
			`;;; lang/purescript/packages.el`

lang/purescript: small improvements 2017-05-22 05:05:04 +08:00			`;; As far as I can tell, at the moment, flycheck-purescript does not work well`
Major optimization refactor, across the board + enable lexical-scope everywhere (lexical-binding = t): ~5-10% faster startup; ~5-20% general boost + reduce consing, function calls & garbage collection by preferring cl-loop & dolist over lambda closures (for mapc[ar], add-hook, and various cl-lib filter/map/reduce functions) -- where possible + prefer functions with dedicated opcodes, like assq (see byte-defop's in bytecomp.el for more) + prefer pcase & cond (faster) over cl-case + general refactor for code readability + ensure naming & style conventions are adhered to + appease byte-compiler by marking unused variables with underscore + defer minor mode activation to after-init, emacs-startup or window-setup hooks; a customization opportunity for users + ensures custom functionality won't interfere with startup. 2017-06-08 17:47:56 +08:00			`;; due to expecting the compiler to be psc rather than purs. However, one of`
			`;; purescript-mode or psc-ide seems to handle flycheck, so it might be`
			`;; unnecessary altogether.`
			`;;(package! flycheck-purescript)`
lang/purescript: small improvements 2017-05-22 05:05:04 +08:00
lang/purescript: first attempt 2017-05-21 12:09:23 +08:00			`(package! psc-ide)`
			`(package! purescript-mode)`