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 yEvVAkmO4WIxFAAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:13:13 +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 ECnKAUmO4WJHmQAAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:13:13 +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 A981DBE37 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:13:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36880 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGlpy-0006Dq-An for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:32:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46008) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGlpD-0006Bg-JZ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:32:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38986) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oGlpC-0007wp-Ks for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:32:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGlpC-0004rR-G1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:32:02 -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 18:32:02 +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=B56799.165894670218656 (code B ref 56799); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:32:02 +0000 Received: (at 56799) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jul 2022 18:31:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56968 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGlos-0004qq-By for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:31:42 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-f52.google.com ([209.85.219.52]:46649) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oGlop-0004qa-IZ for 56799@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:31:41 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-f52.google.com with SMTP id x8so11711409qvo.13 for <56799@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:31:39 -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=rwnkc0v4WYhsBIEC22Qgps13tuFzX65XrghTkBaw8aE=; b=d709W0UiqBu+i8SbjSw4YH4aNFB7V8BO9GFathewdjQF8ybDynhztg9SEvc4Jygpn9 2Bb8L7l7xrfPI/K88XwiLi0eJKuiF8TJcds6n9HJRoES/+ClaFfi2WGTV+F6mwlBp9T3 4Vr5jAFRrQ5QkJ7tu/IVLTXyKyoP6iWd4VVIcf/aFBZ+4NYokL6zTGL/VUDrv+tqMWby XKSACZt3iNlo+QOHn2S9s/8tQOn7SlRD7htoclVbj9HwAMDVkXeqhwgk0UNziVyygMTP 0xKqboAtmI60lw6Xb8D2l5bbbZR5o0BPPCm1UxE5MOoxjtlDF4rDQN5lqpSYAGUeiaqN VyEA== 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=rwnkc0v4WYhsBIEC22Qgps13tuFzX65XrghTkBaw8aE=; b=ZwxXzim9hE6QrfMiXCzC4NL5mQNfVG+MmW3iw5/D4cq3ui+Qt3PeIvM5+AasUUzm3C cNqAAP2gk8IhL1wObKtyahAsL/fC6EEdaQwy2Jltk++g/df910qEUQ3AV4cFcfZ2a0LD z8K5Lx1QOIHGeJ96CSBNygPwI0HJsHZDOx/XLqt5oDFOkTUdSS3tazyorpSVjsSHc9fU 9RKmwHO3tZVeUh96hmOYRAIvmzKD2LQ0gnXEV6oX/oy8z4QrAYJA3rq+YewWbsR0tdnl vLe0hhk8tMMwNw6jIX5pBLFLviydpYvyCVjpjRYuqrG7giVAYpae5wrMV/3s3xU+SpEw JC9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+g62SXzYQS8Ek3diWq4nUp7hEUeLwIlZuP7Tskij3QVLU7HVIY IjrEXXQl/7yz+zmwv347ryo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vppDqdmoetOjLwth3jbgRMCVPOFHWDT42GjdRXa9HnR4lzlod5HebQVICYs/Ij5qtSh8hkUw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:29c7:b0:473:7b25:f950 with SMTP id gh7-20020a05621429c700b004737b25f950mr20706600qvb.95.1658946693904; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurd (dsl-10-148-58.b2b2c.ca. [72.10.148.58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bn31-20020a05620a2adf00b006b5ef0aff29sm13062135qkb.87.2022.07.27.11.31.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:31:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Maxim Cournoyer References: <87o7xa8qxt.fsf@gmail.com> <87a68uqz9r@nckx> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:31:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a68uqz9r@nckx> (Tobias Geerinckx-Rice's message of "Wed, 27 Jul 2022 18:43:25 +0200") Message-ID: <87fsim8l17.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=1658949192; 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=rwnkc0v4WYhsBIEC22Qgps13tuFzX65XrghTkBaw8aE=; b=ufjPbgVWqeIisG/+uK+SzXRAQtS7VMJV9ylYDm6jDGV2RSHi9nLuVbBiXT+iGzVgei1mji EPLQ2JrYusSLAcx6boc/M1XsygiJZCGIZ+A3KuhBUs8amjq4Q9z2SokYYDCTXKvmnzXpEu iMt+JkttrbXn1ZbEnYmjPMOhefVaXCVNlo9kCiopcPn4BRWMw6UGrA4cobtQBpT43Hc6mz fy028CmycmMTJ+9pJO8mh4kmaXAiubKZQb9Mvi+00tZtgMm5jqd+HmT4fYjTcwp7BZwLRg 3hvYK+0kLX9jbscyyhavf0lIAVLebJOdSjBUGfCYvgA5466ou/UJytyhYYI6Zw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1658949192; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=iMNDvHD41IdiYu5SY+gy4CN4OhH9hkqoR3B7AsGHFuGPIcJhFWHRx2qTmrPal6fk3e4evP DxoCVP/jqXFFz8feTl6hD/kyWz5UVkL015CvuYINN0/vx4gJW/j8p3zFngGEgsHNjDtSmR Jnjn334IjkyUsJM+iUDZopBKu+8vvxNTKgSmH20DeoSwCRxTj/VGcZVRnvE8yR2aJrjhFk lF0gU1gj1FMyDHCMyVp6efZuOIaH4ATZHEIBmgum/q2D/3REo4jnNOPyEQ3Vey9gMxR3yX lrMfPFV3ypbeBM91xUwHBxLX+LhuH7dCMUehkLFfncutyZgaljKJ2IwgRug3nw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=d709W0Ui; 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=d709W0Ui; 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: A981DBE37 X-Spam-Score: 6.07 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: Oqd66VYbL6en Hi, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes: > Hi Maxim, > > Maxim Cournoyer =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A >> 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