From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59022)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1dVGYo-0000nx-Gx
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:16:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1dVGYk-0002s3-Hx
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:16:06 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60386)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1dVGYk-0002rq-EB
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:16:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1dVGYk-0000DB-8z
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 08:16:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#27654] [PATCH] base: Report evaluation error.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.27654.B27654.1499861744781@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <20170711171615.3992-1-m.othacehe@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:15:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170711171615.3992-1-m.othacehe@gmail.com> (Mathieu Othacehe's
	message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:16:15 +0200")
Message-ID: <87lgntetr1.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com>
Cc: 27654@debbugs.gnu.org

Howdy!

Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com> skribis:

> * src/cuirass/base.scm (evaluate): Report an error in eof-object? is true=
 on
>   data read from port. Otherwise, suppose that data are correct and keep =
thins
>   going.
> ---
>  src/cuirass/base.scm | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/cuirass/base.scm b/src/cuirass/base.scm
> index f5f80b3..5e0cb0d 100644
> --- a/src/cuirass/base.scm
> +++ b/src/cuirass/base.scm
> @@ -136,7 +136,13 @@ directory and the sha1 of the top level commit in th=
is directory."
>                             (%package-cachedir)
>                             (object->string spec)
>                             (%package-database)))
> -         (jobs (read port)))
> +         (jobs (match (read port)
> +                 ;; If an error occured during evaluation report it,
> +                 ;; otherwise, suppose that data read from port are
> +                 ;; correct and keep things going.
> +                 ((? eof-object?)
> +                  (error "Could not evaluate specifications.\n"))
> +                 (data data))))

While we=E2=80=99re at it, let=E2=80=99s avoid =E2=80=98error=E2=80=99 alto=
gether (=E2=80=98error=E2=80=99 raises a
=E2=80=98misc-error=E2=80=99 exception, which is not very helpful.)

What about declaring a specific SRFI-35 error condition type for
evaluation errors, and then raising it (with SRFI-34) here?  (If you=E2=80=
=99re
not familiar with SRFI-3[45], there are examples of it in the (guix *)
modules.)

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.