Hi!

That's a cool project and it seems to either give accurate answers or no answer at all, which is already good.

However I would not (yet) add it to the Readme or even the rescript-lang.org page.
One gripe I have is the missing syntax highlighting for the ReScript code it puts out. And it also creates very weird (but working) code like this example:

Prompt: "example for setTimeoutFloat"

// Import the necessary functions from the ReScript API
@val external setTimeoutFloat: (unit => unit, float) => Js.Global.timeoutId = "setTimeout"
@val external clearTimeout: Js.Global.timeoutId => unit = "clearTimeout"

// Define a callback function that logs a message to the console
let logMessage = () => {
  Console.log("This message is printed after a delay of 2.5 seconds.")
}

// Set a timeout using setTimeoutFloat with a delay of 2.5 seconds
let timeoutId = setTimeoutFloat(logMessage, 2500.0)

// Optionally, you can clear the timeout before it executes
// clearTimeout(timeoutId)

This creates a new binding for setTimeoutFloat which is already part of the Core library. I tried refining my prompt:

Prompt: "example for setTimeoutFloat, only use new Core standard library"

// Import the Console module for logging
open Console

// Define a function that will be executed after the timeout
let logMessage = () => {
  log("This message is printed after 2.5 seconds.")
}

// Use setTimeoutFloat to schedule the logMessage function to run after 2.5 seconds
let timeoutId = setTimeoutFloat(logMessage, 2500.0)

// Optionally, you can clear the timeout before it executes
// clearTimeout(timeoutId)

This one is better but now it opens the Console which is unusual in most ReScript codebases. You also wouldn't open most modules when you just use a single function.

Maybe the model can be nudged in that direction.

Also you might wanna ask for feedback from ReScript users on the forum.

Thanks for the review @fhammerschmidt

I'll look into the syntax highlighting issue and update this thread.

For other issues, we’ll release significant improvements on the answer generation side, which I believe will address them. Would you be open to giving it another chance once I’m confident it’s robust enough for another review?

Sure!

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.