From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id qDQuBO8W4mJhAAEAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:56:15 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS id uKknA+8W4mIlXwAAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:56:15 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82A1B2012A for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:56:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:49736 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGvZE-0000YJ-OX for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:56:12 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGvZ4-0000Ue-10 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:56:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39381) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGvZ3-0000IE-OZ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:56:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGvZ3-0006y7-Ik for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:56:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#56799: (gnu services configuration) usage of *unspecified* is problematic Resent-From: bokr@bokr.com Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 04:56:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 56799 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Maxim Cournoyer Cc: 56799@debbugs.gnu.org, attila@lendvai.name, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Received: via spool by 56799-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56799.165898413726746 (code B ref 56799); Thu, 28 Jul 2022 04:56:01 +0000 Received: (at 56799) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jul 2022 04:55:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57363 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGvYe-0006xJ-Om for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:55:37 -0400 Received: from mailout.easymail.ca ([64.68.200.34]:41970) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGvYb-0006x1-74 for 56799@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:55:35 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30D162C8B; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 04:55:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bokr.com; s=easymail; t=1658984125; bh=z7U8vymwcJd36EfLSgo/GmGb8lHvDTQkXeAsPS1D5IM=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=U3GYB8RCF3a+ItlMDqmU/e0sBTrD4zKZFKWgOiNrO43ul89z4HjSFWcFJG6uVFx5f 3E0A+4SwqKANAnl8RIqV1TEWP4JlO4S7Fedg/mULa2Fr6/9jWKiCzGT1VZycTC5IZC rD2pRM0boPUUDYgU0C6vqe+1cVwT/2fgBqC6HJoT1+iEY/y+hcxR1rHrVO/DPoYIhG Glg7r0K8Vv3BOf/eO+1NFvOPkHaeVPC6Fr/Zd++o2kDLBUook53oJ1z924HE9tBhV3 IPBZ5GSFwUJ9AP95SS+BPq80bKeDT5RqNNDRC5aO7PALxBcYfQse7KqGr1ik4CcCjf PKlfwwaSFzQTw== X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at emo09-pco.easydns.vpn Received: from mailout.easymail.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (emo09-pco.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ne8beH5KaNyB; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 04:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (m83-185-33-237.cust.tele2.se [83.185.33.237]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00C1762C75; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 04:55:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bokr.com; s=easymail; t=1658984125; bh=z7U8vymwcJd36EfLSgo/GmGb8lHvDTQkXeAsPS1D5IM=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=U3GYB8RCF3a+ItlMDqmU/e0sBTrD4zKZFKWgOiNrO43ul89z4HjSFWcFJG6uVFx5f 3E0A+4SwqKANAnl8RIqV1TEWP4JlO4S7Fedg/mULa2Fr6/9jWKiCzGT1VZycTC5IZC rD2pRM0boPUUDYgU0C6vqe+1cVwT/2fgBqC6HJoT1+iEY/y+hcxR1rHrVO/DPoYIhG Glg7r0K8Vv3BOf/eO+1NFvOPkHaeVPC6Fr/Zd++o2kDLBUook53oJ1z924HE9tBhV3 IPBZ5GSFwUJ9AP95SS+BPq80bKeDT5RqNNDRC5aO7PALxBcYfQse7KqGr1ik4CcCjf PKlfwwaSFzQTw== From: bokr@bokr.com Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 06:55:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20220728045506.GA9725@LionPure> References: <87o7xa8qxt.fsf@gmail.com> <87a68uqz9r@nckx> <87fsim8l17.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87fsim8l17.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1658984174; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=Qki8MRbKtuuF4KlJOLkItpAKcP7AKYzS0kpJpOewHRU=; b=G8Q4apd8JyzcWoq0SmXiPc6QDvmiHVYSY/jFHQIsb1pv/tRJNNSQwEmkDBNS9QdH0M8b3K 3IE1X+cn5JBd8+Whw89DdhtqkcVaNVzNbW2UD+KOjICI19ZBNSqSko1d/eUnYL3cS+VSKe At7YHz31wAy5fsy08fbB0YX0tIA6KaVnI3R3uYf7JfvI0vkeYqXb5hlKlagAUu46mbqZQu 6ZCb6yESlCWlg30JBKE7WufsTSqnaBDQlpW5nGVGd3TsGyOuuz35hc38VMXMI7daIJoauq n3XY5c2dSW7CWD2SFFk+lxwsgIQf/ZSrCaiRK0RMz0Ur0OJrYA2P3dHmeiqJhw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1658984174; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=gxqdYUyY8bck/7HRIyEAVbONruzLv7V5+07N8hxbI7crQmCnORYcX6LDtEoU5U1lUBFX6l cjqQdkYS5WK/q6pZKfIFvxWWkv6dVPF/qbY2ld60+Zo0+UTVWHP1xXKZnn41WzfvECHXIj OTLj3SdnK/BCEJjnVPn209PE/o+w1kxjNT1QymGH3qlL2EAlJjsI/Cb95QvonvQe+QG7hY Lbve6Q44X1MA/5hVm5y1Og0bHNIkVvO+xuvg6K2GJr/n1hp7obgW2Aps0eylQZwcf6kNzb SzBkUn3Lv7feQC6tX6ZVulpziZR8ghuSRD3RkNygyQvJNoF/4kJhGSipsH9ifQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=bokr.com header.s=easymail header.b=U3GYB8RC; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=bokr.com header.s=easymail header.b=U3GYB8RC; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 2.57 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=bokr.com header.s=easymail header.b=U3GYB8RC; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=bokr.com header.s=easymail header.b=U3GYB8RC; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 82A1B2012A X-Spam-Score: 2.57 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: JL/vOkcHB6bv Hi, On +2022-07-27 14:31:32 -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Hi, > > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes: > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > Maxim Cournoyer 写道： > >> I'd suggest we revisit 8cb1a49a3998c39f315a4199b7d4a121a6d66449 to > >> use > >> 'unspecified (the symbol) instead of *unspecified*, which *can* be > >> serialized without any fuss in gexps. > > > > Bah. Could we provide our own reader? > > > > I'd much rather this be addressed in Guile (or failing that, > > transparently by Guix) than have to deal with some magical > > symbol. IIRC that was the argument for using *unspecified* in the > > first place, and I think it makes sense. > > > > This looks more like an unexplored oversight than a well-reasoned > > restriction to me. > > This was my original impression, but thinking more about it, it became > apparent that *unspecified* is well, unspecified and shouldn't be relied > on by people to be something well defined. For some background reading, > see [0]. So it seems wrong in Scheme to actively set things to > *unspecified*, and give a specific meaning to that. > > I think the semantic of the language is that it is to be used as the > lack of a return value from a procedure or syntax, e.g.: > > (unspecified? (if #f 'one-arm-if)) -> #t > > Having 'unspecified?' even defined in Guile seems to go against that > idea; perhaps because Wingo themselves seems to disagree in [0]. > > I'm also thinking 'unspecified being too close to *unspecified* is > probably going to cause confusion down the line. Reverting to the > originally used 'disabled may be the lesser evil. > > Other thoughts? > > Thanks, > > Maxim > > [0] https://scheme-reports.scheme-reports.narkive.com/QSQtJSAh/unspecified-values > > > Lots of systems are dealing with this issue, it seems, judging from [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_type I think the problem is you really need a tuple to return both data and metadata unambiguously from anything that produces a result (or not, which is a result). Something like read-delimited with the 'split option, or using catch. Personally, if I were designing a language :), my goal would be to have nothing unspecified, and no undefined behaviour outside of physical failures ;-) *unspecified* seems me like an ok word for the unasserted/high-impedance state of tri-state memory address bus electronic logic, but IMO the example above --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (unspecified? (if #f 'one-arm-if)) -> #t --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- is not nice. (A nit, but For one thing "specified?" ought to be the question IMO, if you are ging to have that concept, not "unspecified?" :) What about using characters from some private upper unicode section to represent various kinds of unspecified things? E.g., as guile named chars, #\unspecified_function_retval #\unspecified_function_error #\unspecified_macro_err #\unspecified_exception #\nil or #\not_an_object -- or #\nao -- can't use #\n :) #\paradox -- e.g., (eval-nl-string "this sentence is lying") #\nonsense -- e.g. when a question is based on false premises (eval-nl-string "Bob is bareheaded: Bob, is your hat too tight?") Hm, one could argue that (+ "ab" "cd") could be based on the false premise that + was overloaded like --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- scheme@(guile-user) [1]> (let*( (+ string-append) (sum (+ "ab" "cd"))) sum) $8 = "abcd" --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and if it wasn't, should return #\nonsense :) (though maybe as part of the exception, which is practical for debugging etc :) #\ #\guix_bottom -- a private unicode rather than U+22A5 which could be returned as a valid character value by some functon. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ echo -en "\u22a5"|unicode-info "⊥": glyph codepoint .....int name... _⊥_ +U0022a5 8869 UP TACK --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Well, hope you can extract something useful from the above :) BTW, I didn't get far via the link [0] :( --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 🤖 Hungry for data? 🤖 As you guessed, this page is to confirm your affiliation to the human race. about - legalese Loading... --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Ok machine, you identified me as human, and kept me out. Happy? No, I know, machines can only fake that. -- Regards, Bengt Richter