| 15 Nov 2025 |
 Katie | this is true | 18:59:09 |
| Katie | What I would give to at least be able to put that syntax comment inside the string (though I understand why that's not feasible) | 19:00:07 |
 P | Katie: I'm totally in the same boat RE: there is a huge benefit in having syntax awareness for constructs like RE inside a string. For me the moment was when I used JetBrains stuff with Kubernetes Helm charts for the first time. Game changer. But like 522 it/its ⛯ΘΔ already said, luckily, tree sitter is pretty good at nesting our Syntaxes. 🎉🥳
Now we just have to ensure it recognizes that automatically every time in all relevant cases. How hard can that be 🫠
| 19:05:27 |
 aloisw | One problem with adding stuff to the Nix language (whether regex literals or string distinguishers) is that the syntax is already extremely crowded due to questionable decisions of the past | 19:07:39 |
| Katie | yeah... | 19:23:55 |
| Katie | I do hear that | 19:23:59 |
 tc424 (Steve D) | I for one welcome this first step on the road to merging nix and perl syntax | 20:35:33 |
 antifuchs | if syntax highlighting is a concern, tree-sitter-nix can already recognize strings marked | 22:55:50 |
| antifuchs | * if syntax highlighting is a concern, tree-sitter-nix can already recognize strings marked with /* bash */ and other markers... | 22:56:17 |
| 16 Nov 2025 |
 KFears (burnt out) | In reply to @522_:catgirl.cloud
treesitter can do some level of that (things passed to writeShellApplication are highlighted as bash) Damn, TIL | 00:22:54 |
| antifuchs | It’s such a neat feature (also apologies for repeating that same thing you said earlier there) | 01:25:28 |
 hexa | injections is what that feature is called iirc | 01:34:36 |
 piegames | In reply to @347online:matrix.org
What I would give to at least be able to put that syntax comment inside the string (though I understand why that's not feasible) This will hopefully happen, eventually | 07:04:05 |
| piegames | In reply to @347online:matrix.org
Hello. I have a question about prior art in Nix language RFCs/pre-RFCs of if anyone had anyone had ever proposed something along the lines of Regex Literals?
Considering that the Lix project is interested in evolving the language[1][2], I figured this might be a good place to ask?
(Wasn't sure if this moreso belonged here or in Development)
This would be nice to have, but the pile of things that need cleanup first it daunting | 07:05:19 |
| piegames | In an ideal world, we'd get dedicated custom string types with sanity checking and user-defined in pure Nix via macro-like features. In this world, be happy if we get annotated string types so that you can run a linter on it | 07:07:02 |
 Sofie 🏳️⚧️ (she/her) | Redacted or Malformed Event | 16:02:31 |
| Sofie 🏳️⚧️ (she/her) | Redacted or Malformed Event | 16:03:45 |
 neindochoh! / Seti (they/them) | thanks for sharing this hint! :) this makes things like neovim configuration inside nix files soo much more readable for me. | 18:17:26 |
 Emma [it/its] | Q: is there a way to check if all outputs in a flake actually build? | 19:15:40 |
| Emma [it/its] | because nix flake check only checks if they eval, not if they actually build succesfully | 19:19:07 |
 522 it/its ⛯ΘΔ | uhhh... since (custom) checks are really just arbitrary derivations, can you have a check that depends on all the outputs? | 19:19:46 |
 samasaur | that is the typical "solution" i see people use | 19:20:04 |
| Emma [it/its] | i guess? | 19:20:08 |
| samasaur | some flake output that depends on actually building the outputs you want to test | 19:20:22 |
| Emma [it/its] | thanks for pointing me to the fact that checks even exist | 19:24:13 |
| Emma [it/its] | found this snippet on github, that seems to do the trick: checks = pkgs.lib.attrsets.unionOfDisjoint { /* Actual checks */ } self.packages; | 19:24:26 |
|  @bmillwood:matrix.org left the room. | 19:31:00 |
 WeetHet | Re: zulip on nix4 cli
Do we actually need anything except nix2-cli? I think it's already pretty much okay. The worst part is the fileish syntax which can be replaced/extended with flakeref-style one and realistically not much else is needed
We can add nix-run natively if we want by locking onto meta.mainProgram and bin/out outputs or keep it as a separate program like the one I wrote and do we actually need anything else?
| 20:10:27 |
| WeetHet | We can make it so that when pure-eval is enabled the directory containing the file/the file itself get copied to the store so that it works properly if we don't wanna do pure eval properly or we can do proper path isolation and don't copy to store at all, we don't need new CLI for that as well | 20:13:39 |
| WeetHet | If we really need, making nix smth an alias to nix-smth is also possible | 20:14:11 |
