From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Dec 13 08:04:16 2022 Received: (at 60014) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Dec 2022 13:04:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60236 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p54xE-00012s-4V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:04:16 -0500 Received: from smtpmciv2.myservices.hosting ([185.26.107.238]:40852) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p54xC-00012k-5F for 60014@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:04:14 -0500 Received: from mail1.netim.hosting (unknown [185.26.106.172]) by smtpmciv2.myservices.hosting (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9BB20CD8; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:04:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.netim.hosting (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03DF80093; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:04:11 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail1.netim.hosting Received: from mail1.netim.hosting ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1-1.netim.hosting [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id mi8KAHw0Oh12; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:04:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.239] (unknown [10.192.1.83]) (Authenticated sender: lumen@makinata.eu) by mail1.netim.hosting (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01E6480097; Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:04:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4e874c04-8cad-6d72-379b-967721b82713@makinata.eu> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:04:07 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1 Subject: Re: [bug#60014] [PATCH] activation: make install-special-file match against pairs as well. Content-Language: en-US To: Josselin Poiret , 60014@debbugs.gnu.org References: <43e937e1625b47a80887e68847fb8a8811d3f39f.1670867103.git.mirai@makinata.eu> <87k02wfjk5.fsf@jpoiret.xyz> <7f00edbf-8b39-0d3e-4d29-0815176d143c@makinata.eu> <87h6xzfw3d.fsf@jpoiret.xyz> From: mirai In-Reply-To: <87h6xzfw3d.fsf@jpoiret.xyz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 60014 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) On 2022-12-13 10:15, Josselin Poiret wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > mirai 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 https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guile.git/tree/module/ice-9/match.upstream.scm?id=b54263dc98b2700fa777745405ad7651601bcdc6#n139 as Guile's Pattern Matching page doesn't specify how to match against pairs when I was looking into it. > 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: > 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