From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp11.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 OLwOOVII6GI0PgEAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 19:07:30 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp11.migadu.com with LMTPS id MFP9OFII6GLqdAAA9RJhRA (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 19:07:30 +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 9289514364 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2022 19:07:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37954 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIYt7-0001W4-Lv for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 13:07:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIYi2-0008P1-Qy for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:56:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51760) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oIYi2-0002IJ-H1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:56:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oIYi2-0005v1-DO for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:56:02 -0400 Subject: bug#56799: (gnu services configuration) usage of *unspecified* is problematic Resent-From: Maxim Cournoyer Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-To: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 16:56:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: cc-closed 56799 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: attila@lendvai.name, 56799-done@debbugs.gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: 56799@debbugs.gnu.org, maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com, maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com Received: via spool by 56799-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D56799.165937293022697 (code D ref 56799); Mon, 01 Aug 2022 16:56:02 +0000 Received: (at 56799-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Aug 2022 16:55:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41507 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oIYhV-0005u0-GR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:55:29 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f171.google.com ([209.85.222.171]:43945) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oIYhS-0005tm-TS for 56799-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:55:28 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f171.google.com with SMTP id o21so8824897qkm.10 for <56799-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:55:26 -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=Cd/dNokSvI304DnT8HOfAIyBk2nGe89RPhSlV+HPxuU=; b=R/kSfZhYSMeG0HeTuU8QlPqAL1+pzt0v7tg7m0kIVvf2TwhOhau6dkxpUurQI/68wq xQrxnyuE3J1hZKgEKbdNAmSe+Bs8ioqbfralmkH09HgPskEgIvLJOqdc1SnWt2tuM6Vz r6c09kJ3qHILMxpWsjB9szR1xVGtEiWLIX4bczd4ky8BwdDEcBdgVifowkD1r+bHyzBG ddEvvBxTw+LQ5VwQNz1FVuvXHzKAGequsoW6GBUo/4/rgVSHqhkPIsU2bj7YoI+d0ZwY CyYE+luKpuMor5A0bV0d3gSDOI9KE+E+EadW6IMHxvKV0pvs964SxWWb5iWneacYfnQk qGnw== 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=Cd/dNokSvI304DnT8HOfAIyBk2nGe89RPhSlV+HPxuU=; b=SpZMXbAifsRegLknJt/UMfZAGoWM7edWHhRjeVZ0MHQ/IrvO3TiiaVCxJJ1QuqpK1T 6v7vOzRrtqJndI9u3N0sEOP+5v3mTNEziuzcFWUZMfOpjANxRvnKyU+NxzgBTNOucGr8 lYx+pjYaZupVns+M5ff/aeolrxI3sgXNzE8g9HNE9XdnhReXx2kiG25/foi2bOjFTr+4 czSQppxw+3dTHFH4pmhgL5gx81sfkbuZxEMe2j07omb2lbJWZ0D7/EnDSCkMk7DMHNB3 yTF/iI+RUhPRSRdgMxBbod5fzlNy8tjNlsT2/e07dwM9Fzu2E8Zyae3A4vgS8DHKT93k op7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9v6Nc87tJIblwL2/YNjD+mCfUdKPQFa1HlEFWiN9MwTTW/HAXU 3RuAP3OVDuXo3KheZEpU3CHqm+Y3AVhZ6w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sSBtKmlUP9/ZakyKVhhX2iIJ3p07/F3e8h93VK5x8eFTsx5dIpr/1j6VEjcDuDIWNR9LgZag== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:efd8:0:b0:6b5:df92:dc3b with SMTP id d207-20020ae9efd8000000b006b5df92dc3bmr12591320qkg.510.1659372921264; Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurd (dsl-158-240.b2b2c.ca. [66.158.158.240]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s5-20020a05620a254500b006b5c80e2b6asm8764046qko.12.2022.08.01.09.55.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:55:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Cournoyer References: <87o7xa8qxt.fsf@gmail.com> <87a68uqz9r@nckx> <87fsim8l17.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnbypepu@nckx> Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 12:55:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wnbypepu@nckx> (Tobias Geerinckx-Rice's message of "Wed, 27 Jul 2022 20:45:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87czdj3nuw.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=1659373650; 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-to: 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=Cd/dNokSvI304DnT8HOfAIyBk2nGe89RPhSlV+HPxuU=; b=WJki36le02fSaD84D/J0IhTIwLa6u9NK5uK4YrLIWBjSQlGuYEjsPlSiaUriWVEd6+3dXa jGomKIEZiscXSfqn7FEjJQO+dDkiZv9rn4LtkH7AvTs3zsNYJFS6DvqG+gz5CaxIBVULNE DN3NBHDspPoO9pMNLpwrlFVgERs4P0sUk+57UgzibnDmCaLajgne9seStXnx4zzeTSFxpC aw9q+bwsn1vMCNrWIGsiCSb/3qpH3cTX20f4UA5ztm1a+RTuLtloJrF9ssS/F+vaFjMl8k kyj8r2Fg16pOcIQ6AUvIn20m1PAseCOn3VaqD8Zr9DUQK0RLfb6jDsGxHxlydw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1659373650; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=EWV+2/AUapsIM6vyJdktq6Nk1FACdpLeXWlE4RbpN3tB8rjc+/TYTclpjhkOU402ukcH96 VK5dJoWnbi4ucqic9t5YruVQkG6KP8g71mgLKajgFQrADWz0/a01hTy4ZLUjjLh9Cpb51P jrDYs+OEbJ/8RjBfgoHFI6e+Dj27m3AJmcAVMHl8fFQ1d/NEMxV1S1WKtxyRIVDwif3hl9 +3oXMSnRKB3gwwchGPtUzmLRV9Zyxtei4/w4f/x/gu1r4lHOVgbztH57qbXuc7aDQhJuhg yQu/3B2O+VlZvyl0v7pBQ/Eg29E2gm1rCaKNmowETuSgKRhkeCoP1QlwG3F2BQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b="R/kSfZhY"; 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: 6.08 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b="R/kSfZhY"; 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: 9289514364 X-Spam-Score: 6.08 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: d3zoRymGs/ak 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. > >> 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. OK. The v2 and v3 idea ended up not working, among lesser issues :-). So I went with v1, renaming the default value to 'unset; see commit a2b89a3319dc1d621c546855f578acae5baaf6da. Thanks for the naming suggestions. I also added a 'jami-provisioning-partial' system test to ensure it doesn't regress again if we decide to revisit this. Thanks, Closing. Maxim