Hi Tobias, On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 22:32, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> wrote: > zimoun 写道： >> This bug [1] had not been commented since the last 3 years and it has >> been asked more info 3 weeks ago. > > The issue is that files such as /etc/guix/machines.scm (but this applies > equally to /etc/guix/acl & so on) are expected to evaluate to a sexp. > > An empty file does not a valid sexp make, so Guix throws an prickly backtrace > @ your face & dies. This is unlike most other configuration formats where an > empty file or one consisting entirely of comments is a no-op. > > We should decide whether ‘’ is a valid sexp (oh dear, philosophy) or throw > something softer at people. > >> Therefore, I am closing. Feel free to reopen if I misunderstand something. > > I think this bug should remain open until it's decided. What you?
This bug [1] had been initially opened on March, 3rd 2017 then commented for the first time [2] on May, 3rd 2020 and closed [3] on May, 25th 2020. Then reopen the same day [4] with this “philosophical” question about: is empty ’’ a valid sexp? On May, 26th 2020 [5], I provided more examples. >From my understanding, «throw something softer» should be done on the Guile side, as suggested by [6] on September, 13rd 2020. Personally, I do not see what could be the next action [7]? Therefore, if no more explanations about what the issue really is and what be the plan to fix it, I will close it. WDYT? All the best, simon 1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#0> 2: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#1> 3: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#3> 4: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#4> 5: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#6> 6: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-09/msg00125.html> 7: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/25952#8>
