Hi Tobias,
On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> wrote:
Toggle quote (9 lines)
> The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this> applies equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate> to a sexp.>> An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an> prickly backtrace @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other> configuration formats where an empty file or one consisting> entirely of comments is a no-op.
Hum? I am not sure to get the point. Are we talking about this kindof situations, e.g.,
Toggle snippet (4 lines)
touch /tmp/empty.scmguix package -m /tmp/empty.scm -p /tmp/empy
or
Toggle snippet (4 lines)
echo ";; hello" > /tmp/comment.scmguix package -m /tmp/comment.scm -p /tmp/comment
or
Toggle snippet (4 lines)
echo "(define x 42)" > /tmp/answer.scmguix package -m /tmp/answer.scm -p /tmp/answer
?
Toggle quote (3 lines)
> We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy)> or throw something softer at people.
Throw something more "helping" than e.g.,
Toggle snippet (10 lines)
Backtrace: 1 (primitive-load "/home/simon/.config/guix/current/bin/g…")In guix/ui.scm: 1936:12 0 (run-guix-command _ . _)
guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command:In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1(expecting struct): #<unspecified>
?
Toggle quote (5 lines)
> > Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand> > something.>> I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you?
Well, it is a variant of Cunningham's Law, isn't it? :-)So, let reopen it and decide on the philosophical dilemma. ;-)
Cheers,simon