From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] services: openssh: Add 'subsystems' option. Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:17:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87o9wv7aad.fsf@lassieur.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> <20170307214959.16038114@scratchpost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48314) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cq7Up-0008PQ-4E for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:17:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cq7Ul-0000Zw-4f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:17:55 -0400 Received: from mail.lassieur.org ([83.152.10.219]:36062) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cq7Uk-0000Yo-So for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:17:51 -0400 In-reply-to: <20170307214959.16038114@scratchpost.org> 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: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Danny Milosavljevic writes: > 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? Hi Danny, I forgot to thank you for this explanation of pairs and lists. I took it into account here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2017-03/msg00610.html. Clément