| 18 Nov 2025 |
 raitobezarius | i don't see you owner of the parser though i think? | 20:01:56 |
| raitobezarius | ah yes | 20:02:01 |
| raitobezarius | "some of the files" | 20:02:03 |
 Rutile (Commentator2.0) feel free to ping | https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/4608 | 20:05:12 |
| raitobezarius | +2ed | 20:05:44 |
|  jopejoe1 (4094@39c3) changed their display name from jopejoe1 to jopejoe1 (4094@39c3). | 20:18:52 |
| 19 Nov 2025 |
|  Zoe Z joined the room. | 20:52:22 |
|  ellie joined the room. | 23:10:59 |
| 20 Nov 2025 |
|  edef joined the room. | 01:32:40 |
 just1602 | In the lix codebase, what is the best way to print a compile time warning? | 15:19:35 |
 Qyriad | just1602 printTaggedWarning or printWarning | 15:50:28 |
| just1602 | But they only show up at runtime, and not at compile time. At least when I do just build I don't see those warning show up in the build log. | 15:57:02 |
| Qyriad | oh you mean compilation of Lix itself? | 16:09:19 |
| Qyriad | well there's #pragma warning, but for anything more complex you'll have to write a clang-tidy lint. luckily there are already clang-tidy lints in the codebase you can look at | 16:10:09 |
| just1602 | I'll try #pragma warning, it's just for a one off. It's we print a deprecation warning at runtime, and eldritch horrors want a compile time warning when we hit the version we target for the removal | 16:12:30 |
| just1602 | Qyriad: ok, #pragma message seems to do what I was looking for, #pragma warning was just giving an error that warning wasn't a valid pragma instead of displaying the text | 16:18:24 |
| just1602 | Now I just need to know that is the value format of LIX_MAJOR to be able to do # if LIX_MAJOR >= 2.96 ? :D | 16:18:59 |
| just1602 | Is it 2_96, 296, some other format? | 16:19:23 |
| Qyriad | LIX_MAJOR is 2, LIX_MINOR is 96 | 16:37:43 |
| just1602 | Ugh, ahahha, thanks and sorry for bothering I fill bad about this one 😅 | 17:54:39 |
 John Ericson | OK I guess I did not announce this very clearly :) | 20:01:00 |
| John Ericson | (Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium): informed me that at least raitobezarius did not know about our similar work to extricate flakes from the rest of the code base) | 20:02:14 |
| John Ericson | * (Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium): informed me that at least raitobezarius did not know about our similar work to extricate flakes from the rest of the code base, until Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) told him) | 20:02:30 |
| John Ericson | my apopologise for not making that linked message about less opaque | 20:02:42 |
| John Ericson | I wanted you all to take my libexpr -> libflakes separation long ago :) | 20:02:57 |
| John Ericson | * OK I guess I did not announce this very clearly :(, whops! | 20:05:39 |
| just1602 | I'm really not great at C++, but I'd be really interested to see this libexpr -> libflakes project | 20:52:03 |
| raitobezarius | Thank you for the suggestion but we probably won't take it, it doesn't achieve what we want | 21:11:27 |
| raitobezarius | It's not really the important piece of the Flakes extraction project, just moving code around and exposing APIs to register certain operations that are related to Flakes in the evaluation machinery (mostly around NIX_PATH) | 21:12:24 |
| raitobezarius | I have a tree that already finished that part, more difficult parts involves libcmd and generalizing installables | 21:12:49 |
