| 16 Feb 2025 |
 Charles | so i think what you have is actually fine, but you could also change it to just (localWrapper // extra) because i think including the stuff from pkgs is implied by using pkgs.newScope above | 04:50:50 |
 llakala | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
so i think what you have is actually fine, but you could also change it to just (localWrapper // extra) because i think including the stuff from pkgs is implied by using pkgs.newScope above gotcha I'll try that | 04:51:19 |
| Charles | if it doesn't work then just pretend i didn't say anything :P | 04:51:32 |
| Charles | tangentially related: Option<T> in nix:
some[T] = [true T];
none = [false];
option[T] = some[T] | none
| 05:16:35 |
| Charles | * tangentially related: Option<T> in nix:
some<T> = [true T];
none = [false];
option<T> = some<T> | none
| 05:17:13 |
| Charles | llakala: okay i did some more testing and read the source of makeScope and now i'm pretty confident that this is the correct way to add extra things to scope.callPackage without exposing them from the scope:
nixpkgs.lib.customisation.makeScope nixpkgs.newScope (scope:
let
| 06:30:22 |
| Charles | * llakala: okay i did some more testing and read the source of makeScope and now i'm pretty confident that this is the correct way to add extra things to scope.callPackage without exposing them from the scope:
nixpkgs.lib.customisation.makeScope nixpkgs.newScope (scope:
let
callPackage = scope.newScope (scope // attrsetWithExtraStuff);
in
# do stuff with callPackage
| 06:31:07 |
| Charles | * llakala: okay i did some more testing and read the source of makeScope and now i'm pretty confident that this is the correct way to add extra things to scope.callPackage without exposing them from the scope:
nixpkgs.lib.customisation.makeScope nixpkgs.newScope (scope:
let
callPackage = scope.newScope attrsetWithExtraThings;
in
# do stuff with callPackage
| 06:31:57 |
| Charles | * llakala: okay i did some more testing and read the source of makeScope and now i'm pretty confident that this is the correct way to add extra things to scope.callPackage without exposing them from the scope:
nixpkgs.lib.customisation.makeScope nixpkgs.newScope (scope:
let
callPackage = scope.newScope attrsetWithExtraThings;
in
# do stuff with callPackage
)
| 06:32:17 |
 Irenes | so um | 08:30:14 |
| Irenes | I apologize for making a support request, I know everyone's stretched thin | 08:30:24 |
| Irenes | lately when I try to build certain things (there's not much pattern to it) I get messages along the lines of | 08:30:41 |
| Irenes | ` | 08:30:42 |
| Irenes | error: unable to download 'https://cache.nixos.org/g3q2v1185b78sn46brs6hxnxlin69f8d.narinfo': HTTP error 404 ()
response body:
| 08:30:46 |
| Irenes | and it just refuses | 08:30:54 |
| Irenes | removing ~/.cache/nix/ doesn't help | 08:31:04 |
| Irenes | sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, building pieces of it manually causes the problem to go away as if it has never been | 08:31:17 |
| Irenes | only to recur a week or two later | 08:31:21 |
| Irenes | I don't know for sure that this is a lix problem | 08:31:31 |
| Irenes | but any thoughts anyone has would be welcome | 08:31:36 |
| Irenes | I'm on nix (Lix, like Nix) 2.93.0-dev-pre20250120-5f1782a which I realize may be slightly old | 08:31:46 |
 piegames | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
tangentially related: Option<T> in nix:
some[T] = [true T];
none = [false];
option[T] = some[T] | none
Honestly, this is genuinely the best implementation of sum types I've seen for a dynamically typed language, and also it ties in really well with the idea of using lists as tuples | 09:33:43 |
| piegames | 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) | 09:35:07 |
 ma27 | In reply to @irenes:matrix.org
I'm on nix (Lix, like Nix) 2.93.0-dev-pre20250120-5f1782a which I realize may be slightly old IIRC this was indeed a regression on master and the date sounds like you could still be affected. So it probably makes sense to try upgrading. | 09:40:24 |
| Irenes | hmm thanks! | 09:42:11 |
|  aloisw changed their profile picture. | 10:14:30 |
 tea | 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 am now afraid to ask, how are booleans stored? | 11:32:12 |
| piegames | In reply to @noob_tea:matrix.org
i am now afraid to ask, how are booleans stored? Maybe I was a bit unclear: I'd prefer strings over booleans for usability reasons, and there are ways to do so without eating performance | 11:33:57 |
| tea | In reply to@piegames:flausch.social
Maybe I was a bit unclear: I'd prefer strings over booleans for usability reasons, and there are ways to do so without eating performance ah okay, I thought you implied that booleans would be larger than an u32 (which would be terrible, but not that surprising, knowing nix) | 11:35:46 |
| piegames | I mean they are, at least in the sense that all Nix values are 24 byes (IIRC), but string are still slower because of more allocations and bookkeeping (string context etc.) | 11:38:05 |
