| 11 Nov 2025 |
 raitobezarius | not even that, right? | 18:50:53 |
| raitobezarius | in the current semantics, people can manipulate Nix to observe very specific details of the impl | 18:51:04 |
| raitobezarius | if the same people change the interpreter innards and cause these observations to go wrong | 18:51:25 |
| raitobezarius | what are the eval stability expectations we should offer here? | 18:51:35 |
| raitobezarius | a real == for fns will make more things true, hence, if you rely on false-y values somewhere in your magic code, then we will destroy the stability as well here | 18:52:01 |
| raitobezarius | the best thing i can muster/do is to take real world examples and analyze how much we are breaking vs. keeping working | 18:52:15 |
 Winter | no it's a shell script now | 18:52:21 |
| raitobezarius | i'm happy to do crater-style runs for that | 18:52:22 |
| Winter | so i guess that was when it was in C++ | 18:52:29 |
| raitobezarius | aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah | 18:52:30 |
| Winter | for god knows what reason | 18:52:32 |
