| 16 Feb 2025 |
|  gretj joined the room. | 16:11:33 |
 Charles | In reply to @piegames:flausch.social
Though I'd probably stringify the enum tag instead of using a boolean, especially in combination with symbol optimization (strings in the symbol table compress down to u32) I've just realized that you could just get rid of the bool entirely and just go off the length of the list | 16:41:49 |
| Charles | In this particular case anyway. But yeah you'd need a string tag or something in the general case | 16:42:16 |
| Charles | Also this (the general case) is pretty much the same as what I came up with for python a while back: https://charles.pages.gitlab.computer.surgery/blog/python-has-sum-types.html | 16:48:14 |
 piegames | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
In this particular case anyway. But yeah you'd need a string tag or something in the general case Yeah, this exactly. I'd probably prefer making it a more general sum type system | 16:50:33 |
| Charles | is there a name for the <nixpkgs> syntax? newer versions of the cppnix manual seem to call this "path lookup", but i don't see that term in the lix manual anywhere | 18:32:36 |
 antifuchs | Believe that’s just called a path, at least that’s what the nix manual calls them | 18:41:23 |
| antifuchs | From https://nix.dev/manual/nix/2.18/language/values#type-path | 18:41:36 |
| Charles | your manual is too old | 18:41:45 |
| Charles | https://nix.dev/manual/nix/2.25/language/constructs/lookup-path | 18:42:03 |
| antifuchs | Fine fine https://docs.lix.systems/manual/lix/stable/language/values.html#type-path | 18:42:39 |
| Charles | that doesn't give the construct a name | 18:42:59 |
| Charles | it just says you can use that syntax, but it doesn't give it a name | 18:43:19 |
| Charles | i'm looking for a name | 18:43:23 |
| antifuchs | Ah, for the syntax; got it | 18:43:38 |
| Charles | yeah | 18:43:44 |
| Charles | semantically paths and lookup paths behave the same way so for a type system they should probably both just belong to a single path type, but i think it would be useful to have a term for both actual paths and the angle bracket syntax | 18:44:20 |
| antifuchs | Hm, yeah, maybe something to put on the value’s meta info (: | 18:49:26 |
| Charles | relatedly, here's some half-baked thoughts on a system for doing type annotations in nix-the-language: https://hedgedoc.computer.surgery/s/59ni6v-oA# | 19:37:35 |
| Charles | if anyone has ideas for how to solve the problem mentioned with callPackage towards the end there i'd be interested in hearing it | 19:46:06 |
| Charles | basically, callPackage will add attributes if the thing you're callPackageing returns an attribute set, otherwise it won't bother | 19:47:01 |
| Charles | the type in the reference doesn't even indicate this behavior: https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#function-library-lib.customisation.callPackageWith | 21:27:59 |
 jyrama | I somehow managed to get my nix-env oom-killed while running comma. Not sure why comma even ran nix-env in the background. Anyone has pointers for gathering information on the process so the underlying problem could be investigated after I start reproducing it? | 21:38:28 |
| 17 Feb 2025 |
 522 | # nix flake update
warning: Ignoring the client-specified setting 'tarball-ttl', because it is a restricted setting and you are not a trusted user
warning: Ignoring the client-specified setting 'tarball-ttl', because it is a restricted setting and you are not a trusted user
any clue what would be causing this? nix run nixpkgs#nix -- flake update doesn't cause this, so this seems to be a lix specific thing?
# nix --version
nix (Lix, like Nix) 2.92.0
(installed using the lix module on a flakes system)
grepping through my dotfiles for tarball-ttl finds nothing, so i have no clue where it's actually picking that up from
| 02:52:47 |
| Charles | yeah i've been seeing this too, i suspect there's something inside lix that's setting this specifically for nix flake update to try to refresh tarballs | 03:24:40 |
| Charles | i don't think i've seen those warnings appear when doing any operation other than nix flake update | 03:25:03 |
| Charles | friendship ended with nixpkgs.lib.packagesFromDirectoryRecursive, now loadFromDirectoryRecursive and makeScopedPackagesFromDirectoryRecursive are my new best friends: https://gitlab.computer.surgery/charles/dotfiles/-/blob/main/nix/lib/fs.nix?ref_type=heads | 07:25:56 |
| Charles | i've just opened an issue about this since i didn't see an existing one: https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/issues/680 | 07:37:06 |
 julia | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
yeah i've been seeing this too, i suspect there's something inside lix that's setting this specifically for nix flake update to try to refresh tarballs guessing it's this https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/src/commit/d745b28500c4cd9d865e219502e363efd82751f7/lix/nix/flake.cc#L121 | 10:14:24 |
|  Odd joined the room. | 11:58:51 |
