IRC channel logs

<zacts>hello civodul

<civodul>mark_weaver: did you have chance to look at my gexp prose? ;-)

<mark_weaver>civodul: yes, I did. I don't fully understand it, and I think there may be better ways of doing it, but I'll have to write about it later. about to catch a train.

<mark_weaver>going offline now... ttyl!

<civodul>ok

*civodul goes for #~ and #$ in gexps

<Fulax>meh

<Fulax>so #~ is derivation-computation time, while #$ refers to guix-evaluation time ?

<civodul>yes

<civodul>well i'd say "build side" for #~ vs. "host side" for #$

<civodul>Fulax: how do you like it? :-)

<Fulax>civodul: seems strangly familiar

<civodul>heheh

<Fulax>:-)

<civodul>there's a pattern here: R6 syntax-quote, HOP

<Fulax>I know too litle about the build side, not enough guix usage on my side I thinkl

<civodul>that'll come, hopefully :-)

<Fulax>do you think to allow #~ escapes within #$ escapes ?

<bavier>civodul: there are some packages that need to reference particular versions of packages as inputs, but can keep that version reference confined to the inputs list, with a generic reference to the name later. With gexps, would one need to use the versioned package name everwhere it is referenced?

<civodul>Fulax: i haven't thought much about it, but i don't see any use case

<civodul>bavier: gexps shouldn't change anything in the basic paradigm

<civodul>they won't be used for packages in the short term

<civodul>but in the longer term, that would allow you to do things like this in 'arguments':

<civodul>#:configure-flags #~((string-append "--with-foo=" #$foo))

<civodul>instead of doing (assoc-ref %build-inputs "foo")

<bavier>I like that

<civodul>so mostly a syntactic convenience

<civodul>and also that would work even if 'foo' is not listed in 'inputs'

<civodul>and you'd get a compile-time warning if 'foo' is unbound

<civodul>it'll cure all diseases, basically

<civodul>:-)

<bavier>I see, because currently, you'd only get an error once the build is running

<bavier>would the packages referenced in a gexp be implicitely added to inputs?

<civodul>yes, that's the main point

<bavier>interesting, ok. thanks for the clarifications

IRC channel logs

2014-04-25.log