| 15 Feb 2025 |
 K900 | I'm just saying the situation is more complicated than just "bug not fixed" | 06:18:57 |
| K900 | In practice I think we should go ahead and just break it because it's absolutely impossible for the old behavior to actually be useful for anyone ever | 06:19:22 |
 Charles | i was gonna ask what your take would be | 06:19:40 |
| K900 | But it is still a compatibility break and should be handled with care | 06:21:31 |
 aloisw | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
I'm just saying the situation is more complicated than just "bug not fixed" I don't think it is actually, fixing the bug would just make a behaviour that is already present (namely in the non-"chroot" case) consistent. | 06:21:55 |
| Charles | is there a good testing framework for nix expressions? doing assertions on positive cases is obvious, but asserting that eval should fail and how it should fail is less so | 06:54:34 |
| Charles | there are docs now btw | 08:58:56 |
| Charles | * there are docs now btw, in the readme mostly | 08:59:10 |
| Charles | * there are docs now btw, in the readme mostly | 08:59:43 |
| Charles | Project idea: nix minifier | 09:04:00 |
|  BenjB83 joined the room. | 10:18:02 |
| BenjB83 changed their display name from Benjamín Buske to BenjB83. | 10:43:15 |
 piegames | In reply to @charles:computer.surgery
Project idea: nix minifier I think nixfmt can already do that | 10:56:03 |
 Maximilian Marx | for maximal confusion, call it minix | 11:03:49 |
| piegames | Or it at least has the infrastructure to trivially implement, because it has other IR transformations already | 10:56:45 |
| piegames | In reply to @kfears:matrix.org
Lix has also been backporting stuff from newer versions like 2.24, like pipe-operator, so as far as normal or even advanced usage (going as far as maintaining Nixpkgs) is concerned, you should be good to go Bad example, pipe operator was implemented first in Lix and then independently in CppNix (they have different semantics) | 10:58:36 |
 KFears (no longer human) | In reply to @piegames:flausch.social
Bad example, pipe operator was implemented first in Lix and then independently in CppNix (they have different semantics) Wut | 11:19:33 |
| KFears (no longer human) | Tell me more? | 11:20:31 |
| piegames | Different precedence for the backpipe operator | 11:45:26 |
| piegames | Try it out :) | 11:45:33 |
| KFears (no longer human) | 🫠 | 13:27:23 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @aloisw:julia0815.de
In fairness, this bug has not been fixed in Lix either as far as I know. There's a patch cooking | 13:40:45 |
 tea | sorry, meson noob here. is the lix that you get by just compile optimized? | 18:20:21 |
| tea | sorry, meson noob here. is the lix that you get by just compile o2 or o0? | 18:20:28 |
| aloisw | Depends on how you did the setup, but it should be 2 by default. | 18:29:42 |
 ShalokShalom | In reply to @s9616726:tu-dresden.de
for maximal confusion, call it minix Linix 😜 | 18:39:29 |
 helle (just a stray cat girl) | In reply to @s9616726:tu-dresden.de
for maximal confusion, call it minix nah, just call it echtnix (anyway, silly dutch humor) | 21:44:25 |
| piegames | We already have the garnix CI … | 21:49:27 |
 Arian | fastnix is also a good one | 22:24:18 |
| Arian | Synonym for garnix but it's faster | 22:24:26 |
