From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] services: openssh: Add 'subsystems' option. Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:49:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20170307214959.16038114@scratchpost.org> References: <20170219185431.zgn53ndcbpedrgo7@wasp> <20170220235355.29115-1-clement@lassieur.org> <20170220235355.29115-5-clement@lassieur.org> <20170302084448.2ff6ce96@scratchpost.org> <87fuivxukg.fsf@lassieur.org> <20170305145026.zgoayn46kvpz5ksy@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clM3d-0000H0-62 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:50:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clM3a-0006r5-2y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:50:09 -0500 Received: from dd1012.kasserver.com ([85.13.128.8]:39775) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clM3Z-0006qm-Sa for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 15:50:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20170305145026.zgoayn46kvpz5ksy@abyayala> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: ng0 Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Cl=E9ment?= Lassieur Hi ng0, On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 14:50:26 +0000 ng0 wrote: > What I take from the discussion is, all is good to go except for > subsystems. I'm okay with reviewing subsystems as an individual patch > later on. For me this works. Push the 3 patches, and send the subsystems > one later as a new discussion-bug. The 3 were pushed to master. Patch 4 not yet. So let's discuss. I have no preference for pairs or lists - it's just that the documentation should say what it actually expects - because the user has to write the form differently: Pair: '(a . b) List: '(a b) Those are not compatible with each other. (I think as the patch is written now it expects lists) And I'm against calling pairs "two-element tuple"s. It reminds me of these math joke equations which write the value 2 in a really complicated way (but correctly) :) And lists are definitely not two-element tuples. That would be seriously confusing. What do you think?