Hi,
Philip McGrath skribis:
> On 3/30/22 09:28, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> Too bad about all that other crap about checking whether the index
>> is in
>> range and the field is boxed or not, though :-/ Probably there is a
>> better design...
>> Andy
>
> For the index-out-of-range part, when I saw `re
Hi,
On 3/30/22 05:37, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
What is the preferred mechanism for exceptions?
For Guix code, SRFI-34/35.
Likewise, what record system should I use?
SRFI-9.
(Perhaps we should put answers to these questions in the “Coding Style”
section of the manual.)
As I've looked mo
Hi,
On 3/30/22 09:28, Andy Wingo wrote:
Too bad about all that other crap about checking whether the index is in
range and the field is boxed or not, though :-/ Probably there is a
better design...
Andy
For the index-out-of-range part, when I saw `record-accessor`, I thought
of it as simil
Hi,
Andy Wingo skribis:
> Here we see the first procedure which is the thunk that wraps the
> expression. Then in the beginning of the procedure at L7 you can see
> there is a check for struct?, which has to be dominated by a true
> heap-object? check. Duplicate checks are elided. So if SRFI-
On Wed 30 Mar 2022 11:37, Ludovic Courtès writes:
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (container-contents '())
>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
>> In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1
> scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(srfi srfi-9)
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define-re
Hi Philip,
Philip McGrath skribis:
> I'm thinking that a reasonable place to start might be to implement a
> `contract->sanitizer` form that would allow using contracts to create
> sanitizers, ideally with no changes to `(guix records)`.
OK. I’d prefer if people who define record types could
Hi,
On 3/7/22 05:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi Philip,
Philip McGrath skribis:
Racket's state-of-the-art contract system has many features and nuances. I *do
not* think anyone should try to implement them all in one fell swoop. I'm
hoping there's a way to implement your simple assertions wit
Hi Philip,
Philip McGrath skribis:
> Racket's state-of-the-art contract system has many features and nuances. I *do
> not* think anyone should try to implement them all in one fell swoop. I'm
> hoping there's a way to implement your simple assertions with only a modest
> amount of overhead that
Hi,
On Monday, February 28, 2022 7:59:02 AM EST Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> > Philip McGrath writes:
> >> As a Racketeer, I think you're half way to reinventing contracts.
> >
> > Yes, I was in fact thinking of contracts, but shied away from mentioning
> > them :
Hello,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>>
>>> I hear we now have "field sanitizers" on Guix records; without having
>>> dug the details, it seems to be we could add a predicate validating the
>>> input there?
>>
>> I don’t see how that would help
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>
>> I hear we now have "field sanitizers" on Guix records; without having
>> dug the details, it seems to be we could add a predicate validating the
>> input there?
>
> I don’t see how that would help here. In my example the service values
> th
Hi!
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> Philip McGrath writes:
>
>> As a Racketeer, I think you're half way to reinventing contracts.
>
> Yes, I was in fact thinking of contracts, but shied away from mentioning
> them :) The reason is that I think we can cover a lot of distance with
> just a few simple
Hi Ricardo,
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>
>> I hear we now have "field sanitizers" on Guix records; without having
>> dug the details, it seems to be we could add a predicate validating the
>> input there?
>
> I don’t see how that would help here. In my example the service
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> I hear we now have "field sanitizers" on Guix records; without having
> dug the details, it seems to be we could add a predicate validating the
> input there?
I don’t see how that would help here. In my example the service values
themselves are all right. It’s a pro
Hello Ricardo,
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Hi Guix,
>
> today on IRC someone reported an ugly error message when reconfiguring
> their system:
>
> Backtrace:
> 18 (primitive-load "/home/me/.config/guix/current/bin/…")
> In guix/ui.scm:
>2209:7 17 (run-guix . _)
> 2172:10 16 (run-gui
Hi Ricardo,
I too would like to see much better error checking for our services,
though I don't know what the best way to achieve that is.
Type checking alone may not be sufficient. All types in a configuration
record could be valid, but some combination of field values in the
record may not be
Philip McGrath writes:
> As a Racketeer, I think you're half way to reinventing contracts.
Yes, I was in fact thinking of contracts, but shied away from mentioning
them :) The reason is that I think we can cover a lot of distance with
just a few simple assertions to avoid plowing ahead on bad
Hi,
On 2/14/22 17:32, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
As you can probably tell easily by looking at this message, the
“service” field of the operating system configuration looked something
like this:
(services (append (list a b c %desktop-services) #;oops))
instead of this
(services (append (list
Ricardo Wurmus schreef op ma 14-02-2022 om 23:32 [+0100]:
> I think we should add simple type checks, something like this:
> [...]
>
> What do you think? There are many different ways of implementing this
> (a new variant of DEFINE that also accepts a type declaration, an assert
> like above, a f
Hi Guix,
today on IRC someone reported an ugly error message when reconfiguring
their system:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
Backtrace:
18 (primitive-load "/home/me/.config/guix/current/bin/…")
In guix/ui.scm:
2209:7 17 (run-guix . _)
2172:10 16 (
20 matches
Mail list logo
