From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id mEUpJhmO4WJ/awAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:12:25 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id oGkHJhmO4WKa1gAAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:12:25 +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 52D413BF21 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37126 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGmSG-00030o-C7 for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:12:24 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52226) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGmPy-0001Yx-NN for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:10:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGmPy-0005Gh-1P for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:10:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGmPx-00063P-Sw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:10:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#56799: (gnu services configuration) usage of *unspecified* is problematic Resent-From: Maxim Cournoyer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 19:10:01 +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: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: 56799@debbugs.gnu.org, attila@lendvai.name Received: via spool by 56799-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56799.165894898623234 (code B ref 56799); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 19:10:01 +0000 Received: (at 56799) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jul 2022 19:09:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57037 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGmPi-00062g-0W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:09:46 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f169.google.com ([209.85.160.169]:38739) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGmPg-00062N-2e for 56799@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:09:44 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f169.google.com with SMTP id y9so13327739qtv.5 for <56799@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:09:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xbgl2uhsDExbXwWUcDP2887ZVdGTgKgCjR/37UpZkIk=; b=NV16nV8nEONl+VYpPdJFpsSLqEyh3fw4tmIxhIRyxcJqN9TUW+TkEtdKoGcqL1WwzJ h2teFzikCmKE+o6sWZ9S30BFc9IFo3+ASAliblggHCLmXBsxmipUxG001R38GiL0USge u129SfYAOAICD8k2wI3xuFfQIb38RdX59WSNpa+pWb4nv4Lx0k2JlkpmtLq9e+ZoLfpA 77W1xsCAHF4G8c7mKQLt8OPNqgrRpDkCy95nyHWS5oyiaue7KqsSsF32JvHv3p8GeENY Nbb1HIJMHMJqL89rxExEr+F2lsatXAViu7/KrnXlQ72SMuJH9apwhOBIQMoKkIjjq5BB 7TdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xbgl2uhsDExbXwWUcDP2887ZVdGTgKgCjR/37UpZkIk=; b=XPv6WfwihRPxzlP39EqNTcdrgrn6Gwmj7zAeQ5x4GpbhCnZvmsM9uw3vrqEmf7alGw qBhUHvHPjOCRsidxPrTwwt+o16TnBh8P7b7Fg3FrYpiShwj4ZOLe+7/auv3jOgd0YGLi q7CggWh1J2p55Qk9putKle17TNJUqGpUkX/54qccGZAxoBJCkP0vQG0Ycbk/Zr2ZlcRf T+NOICMG+T7Cj80yBHPJFkopxWo5Z8B37j6PxiWQxA2IU2z3W4ticXSjDrQw74Sek6Ml NFOtiyg3zDNp/0zF6gNtFUsoYHnOrsFh32hnbaOaBqiShYYW3GTAMrx4EdhgJpWxbitS i10w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+T8Vf0QMhp3Cn28B+lx/3UGm8UHe+wD7D1trG1IIIZd0C41ys0 yQI7hphqAm1HjIrd1Sl7koQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ugen8aCMfY7UNVmfzIHGGbNRSUDP9ZPObzyK2UciHbBF8B7zgJDjhkvFaiE9OvEOOysIctxQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2cc:b0:31f:523:c318 with SMTP id a12-20020a05622a02cc00b0031f0523c318mr19644552qtx.286.1658948978181; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurd (dsl-10-148-58.b2b2c.ca. [72.10.148.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bj9-20020a05620a190900b006a6a7b4e7besm13884037qkb.109.2022.07.27.12.09.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 12:09:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Cournoyer References: <87o7xa8qxt.fsf@gmail.com> <87a68uqz9r@nckx> <87fsim8l17.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnbypepu@nckx> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 15:09:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wnbypepu@nckx> (Tobias Geerinckx-Rice's message of "Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:45:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87bkta8j9r.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=1658949145; 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=Xbgl2uhsDExbXwWUcDP2887ZVdGTgKgCjR/37UpZkIk=; b=GrD8HNvp9kQ2WaSblT/LhQQZh1GtYN6q85O95+DFx3zIeQvpzAjxe4ahWtrmaex3PFd1o9 +O3x4m6E8I9U3/x23x+ObWlwTAvsHrAgf40+rj8y05pWPCIIPcIqUQbI4f9WvN4SkVnyHe xI7QhYQFC3vR6tqlBECpTnIyysBjvyc+GbqzygzuYaM7bBv8l2eARs4sCvjt4P0XHf/+qi KzNZHKxliozI4HYwiHsOk1vO0Xj/xYw3KJ4jKkJ5WDKn0FJn2rDUecQds1fFIVlrzzAtdd ysvj438fp58pZNtgbWmVIUYRfp99QH4mDQ7mJa0uFd8qit4yVWQRCuk5wBVkMw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1658949145; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=sHjcNytRimcYMkYUiTdC/4u/Xz/r6J+MYYKlFKgwdGrtJelwUdjkwWK8H3cw4oUgRKFNYq aGG86Ty8G42vVq1wgyAq4WI7S1f0U0V+3voVO6D+E9V+N+o7Lzzt7Fs0lIZJ+Fu5Hntg8b QwqriRSPKTlquddrA5GgsAtKBFBCSAvIfUx+5YsTYMTKpZy9wcjVLFDHiN3W3jzmwrpKvB iTwbEd2q1eKD/0WTtnabSZGOQHdKrRao+Fc3X9WdbmhQqS98oVNB4GInJ0ZbzJHOTytcqV Gi6q85WmTjlb5ke/z9RHSMhC+OvWxE3mkpYPOrJORO8vvYkreokz8dfdgV8VJQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=NV16nV8n; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=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: 6.07 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=NV16nV8n; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=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: 52D413BF21 X-Spam-Score: 6.07 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: Qsm7xgmUPlwM Hi, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes: > Hi Maxim, > > Maxim Cournoyer =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A >> For some background reading, see [0]. > > Thanks for the well-thought-out reply, and sharing this interesting > link! > > Now, it's just the musings of one person, but now I think I do agree > with (what I think is) the underlying vision: to hush up *unspecified* > and sneakily replace it with true nothingness. OK, I can live with > 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 > > Well=E2=80=A6 in the above context I'd hesitate to even imply > =E2=80=98semantics=E2=80=99. It's like undefined behaviour in C. Ascribe= it meaning > at your peril. Otherwise, point taken. > >> Having 'unspecified?' even defined in Guile seems to go against that >> idea; perhaps because Wingo themselves seems to disagree in [0]. > > Agreed. *This* was one of my reasons for supporting (field > *unspecified*), so it's nice to have it validated, even if it is > rejected. Good to know I wasn't the only one nudged into thinking the 'unspecified?' procedure somehow justified using *unspecified* directly. >> 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. > Ah, here I can concentrate all my previous disagreement: hell no :-) > > It is the worstest evil; literally anything is better than > (enable-foo? 'disabled) defaulting to #t. > > Bikeshed this all y'all want, but 'default or 'unset or 'whatever are > miles better. Thanks for sharing your idea! The neat thing here, is that even if we disagree about 'unspecified in the patch I'm about to send, we can discuss it to length then fix the end result in a second using sed ;-). Thanks for your input! Maxim