| 14 Oct 2025 |
 emily | I mean that if { algo, format, digest } is considered a "first-class" thing the implementation is consuming then it doesn't seem so weird to have a built-in that converts it at that point | 17:45:26 |
| emily | (the other potential use-cases like producing Nix32 filenames and converting lock file formats would remain regardless) | 17:45:44 |
 Qyriad | Filenames and lockfiles are a point in favor, but if the implementation consumes { algo, format, digest } in any form then you specifically wouldn't need to convert between them, no? | 17:46:54 |
| emily | I am not saying that you would need to convert them to pass them to a FOD fetcher. I'm saying that if the objection to a convertHash is "this is doing too much because these structured hashes aren't really a first-class implementation concept", but then you add support for structured hashes to FODs, then they are a first-class implementation concept and it doesn't seem too weird to have a conversion built-in for them. | 17:50:30 |
| emily | (and then that conversion built-in would be useful for the other use caess) | 17:50:41 |
| Qyriad | Ahh | 18:00:08 |
| * Qyriad nods | 18:00:10 |
| emily | is there actually a reliable way to feature detect NULs in strings currently? | 19:29:19 |
| emily | everything I can think of would abort in current Nix versions | 19:29:33 |
 jade_ | sounds like we need builtins.features real bad? | 19:39:21 |
| emily | it could just be a boolean | 19:40:30 |
 raitobezarius | detect NULs in a string OR detect NUL support in strings? | 19:40:37 |
| emily | builtins.nulBytesInStrings or false | 19:40:39 |
| jade_ | yes, that's what builtins.features is for :) | 19:40:40 |
| raitobezarius | i read the question in a different way | 19:40:41 |
| emily | fair enough | 19:40:49 |
| jade_ | we should not pollute the builtins namespace itself | 19:40:50 |
| raitobezarius | i thought this was about builtins.doesItHaveSomeNuls s | 19:40:51 |
| emily | no, it's about being able to portably use NUL bytes | 19:41:10 |
| jade_ | the only reason we don't have builtins.features is cuz nobody had time to do it yet | 19:41:20 |
| Qyriad | does it need any further design work or anything? | 22:10:45 |
| 15 Oct 2025 |
 helle (just a stray cat girl) | we are having a laugh/cry at the CI pipeline due to a merge requiring a rebase and that requiring a CI pass, it's an understandable problem, but we missed the window due to us having a migraine | 09:23:17 |
| raitobezarius | Soon, merge queue | 09:58:31 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | yes pls | 09:58:41 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | it's getting slightly comedic | 09:58:57 |
 Rutile (Commentator2.0) feel free to ping | yeahhhh | 10:08:48 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | in some ways this is a good problem to have, means people are actually working on patches, etc, but uh, we bet like half the current CI action is rebase to merge due to rebase due to missing the window | 10:15:11 |
| Rutile (Commentator2.0) feel free to ping | and/or maybe a ci skip, if only files of /doc have been touched without any code or test changes | 10:17:46 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | trying to remember if /doc markdown gets included in any other file, but I think it is only the reverse relation | 10:18:54 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | really need to write a ponderation doc for the approach of improving the doc building situation and things like link checking and such, may throw a pad up and after a draft there throw it on the wiki for further feedback | 10:20:51 |
