| 1 Dec 2025 |
 Qyriad | I mean that's unavoidable when we compare my pointer, that's why it's such a problem | 12:47:51 |
 piegames | In reply to @qyriad:katesiria.org
scopedImport disables that caching For now at least | 12:50:07 |
 niko ⚡️ | Just use pointer equality for the scope to decide on cache key /j | 12:50:52 |
 kloenk | Please don’t remind me of the horrors of the internals of the Linux kernel (they actually have structs that just contain an int so they can take a pointer to it as a unique value) | 12:58:33 |
 raitobezarius | that's why we can never use function pointer equality | 14:44:09 |
| raitobezarius | unless we have function semantical equality imho | 14:44:15 |
| raitobezarius | we don't want to let people develop a model of evaluation order, laziness semantics and so on | 14:44:28 |
| raitobezarius | (we want a rigorous model of course, but no one is allowed to tie their implementation to it) | 14:44:38 |
| raitobezarius | because funext only works via funptr equality, then funext must die | 14:44:52 |
| raitobezarius | also | 14:45:33 |
| raitobezarius | i wonder | 14:45:34 |
| raitobezarius | if (removeAttrs [ f1_name … fp_name ] A) == (removeAttrs [ f1_name … fp_name ] B) that slow? | 14:45:56 |
| raitobezarius | or some recursiveRemoveAttrs obv | 14:46:05 |
| raitobezarius | in the context of nixpkgs system platform comparison i mean | 14:46:20 |
| piegames | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
unless we have function semantical equality imho Which, to be clear, we really really don't want, no matter which fancy theoretical models exist that "solve" this problem :) | 15:04:21 |
| raitobezarius | yes yes, we went through this | 15:05:08 |
| raitobezarius | (but u sure u dont want to impl bisimulation?) | 15:05:15 |
| piegames | If the only reason we need function comparison in the first place is "woops we did a Von Neumann mistake and now all our data is mixed with code so we can't compare it anymore", then the solution should be to stop doing that instead | 15:06:00 |
| piegames | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
(but u sure u dont want to impl bisimulation?) Only on a conference paper | 15:06:19 |
 K900 | Oof | 15:42:00 |
| K900 | Lowdown update in nixpkgs broke the override in lix flkae | 15:42:10 |
|  νεολαμπής [he/him] changed their profile picture. | 16:42:07 |
|  Brisingr changed their display name from Brisingr05 to Brisingr. | 18:40:09 |
|  schromp joined the room. | 20:52:51 |
| 2 Dec 2025 |
 dr_teagle | how would I do "subflakes" mainly for devshells. I have shared dependencies in the top-level flake and then the specific dependencies lower. This is for an obsidian vault | 02:32:59 |
| K900 | Don't | 05:39:21 |
| K900 | Do multiple dev shells in one flake if you must | 05:39:30 |
 just1602 | I've colleague who did that in a couple of repos at work, and it's a mess to work with. You should really listen to k900 advise, IMO | 05:41:14 |
| dr_teagle | understandable | 05:55:16 |
 brendanzab | Hey, just wondering if there is there any consensus yet on what to do r.e. the flake freeze? i.e. https://lix.systems/blog/2025-11-18-lix-2.94-release/#flakes-enters-freeze-period and https://wiki.lix.systems/books/lix-contributors/page/flakes-feature-freeze?
Is it better just to wait and see where things go, trusting that there will be a decent migration period? | 09:44:50 |
