On 2022-12-13 10:15, Josselin Poiret wrote:
Toggle quote (29 lines)
> Hi Bruno,
>
> mirai <mirai@makinata.eu> writes:
>
>> The documentation for it says:
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> The value associated with special-files-service-type services must be a list of tuples where the first element is the “special file” and the second element is its target.
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> Which I think is the natural way of doing it. (and communicates the intent, a pair with a path and a file-like object.)
>
> Right, that's unfortunate, although that could be changed to “list of
> lists” to make it clearer.
>
>> Of course, (list "path" file-like-obj) works as well but imo the pair is clearer in purpose.
>> (what meaning would the third element and so on have, if ever present?)
>> This I found out the hard way by getting strange errors until I looked into what happens behind
>> `special-files-service-type' and realizing that only lists were accepted.
>>
>> The mixing of cases is unfortunate (it should have been pairs from the start) but preserves
>> compatibility with existing syntax.
>
> I agree with you here, but then I think to avoid having to maintain both
> cases at the same time, all existing uses of special-files-service-type
> should also be modified, and only one kind should remain, with the other
> triggering some deprecation warning. You could match to `(path
> . file-like)`, and if (list? file-like), throw an exception.
The `(= car target) (= cdr file)' match pattern is lifted from
as Guile's Pattern Matching page doesn't specify how to match against pairs when I was looking into it.
Toggle quote (8 lines)
> As a sidenote, the main problem is that Guile is not a statically typed
> language, but that's a whole other debate to have.
>
> In any case, I don't think this patch will be accepted as-is. I would
> only be partially in favor of the second solution (because it breaks
> existing code), while the first solution is low-effort and should work
> well enough. Up to you (and maintainers) to decide.
A breaking change here (or a non-breaking "deprecated" warning similar to how
bootloader target field was renamed to targets can be done too, but before
any further changes its best to discuss if such a change will be received.
On 2022-12-12 20:34, Josselin Poiret wrote:
Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Otherwise, you're missing the ChangeLog entry format for the commit
> message, which you can find described at [1]. You can take some
> inspiration from other commits in the repository.
I'm missing the link at [1], could you resend it?
Cheers,
Bruno
