| 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 |
