Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
4 Aug 2024 | ||
Traxys joined the room. | 13:40:51 | |
tacticaltaco joined the room. | 22:09:55 | |
9 Aug 2024 | ||
Matt Sturgeon | I've been playing around with this in this branch (current commit), but what I have now is infinitely recursive, because Is this approach fundamentally flawed? Do you have any suggestions for working around the inf-recursion? The immediate alternative that springs to mind is to pass both a I | 13:30:14 |
Matt Sturgeon | * I've been playing around with this in this branch (current commit), but what I have now is infinitely recursive, because Is this approach fundamentally flawed? Do you have any suggestions for working around the inf-recursion? The immediate alternative that springs to mind is to pass both a I | 13:30:54 |
Matt Sturgeon | * I've been playing around with this in this branch (current commit), but what I have now is infinitely recursive, because Is this approach fundamentally flawed? Do you have any suggestions for working around the inf-recursion? The immediate alternative that springs to mind is to pass both a
| 13:31:39 |
Matt Sturgeon | * infinisil Robert Hensing (roberth) Thanks for your support so far! I've been playing around with the concept in this branch (current commit), but my current implementation is infinitely recursive, because Is this approach fundamentally flawed? Do you have any suggestions for working around the inf-recursion? The immediate alternative that springs to mind is to pass both a
| 15:12:07 |
10 Aug 2024 | ||
Matt Sturgeon | I've opened a draft PR that does it as an https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/333799 | 23:30:29 |
13 Aug 2024 | ||
Austin Horstman joined the room. | 22:45:20 | |
14 Aug 2024 | ||
Robert Hensing (roberth) | Matt Sturgeon: would you (or anyone I guess?) be interested in completing types.record from https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/257511? I don't have much time for this kind of thing due to other responsibilities recently | 14:41:16 |
Matt Sturgeon | I also don't know how much time I can dedicate to it. I had looked at it before when exploring solutions to https://matrix.to/#/!wfudwzqQUiJYJnqfSY:nixos.org/$mVuETvj4dPJNF6ZUdVEVvWmp07L5G3X-6y0bk-NmCP4?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=nixos.dev, however I came to the conclusion it is an interesting (and useful looking) type, but not a viable solution to the problem we have in nixvim. I'll attempt to clarify a little in my response to your (very helpful) feedback in #333799. | 14:45:44 |
Robert Hensing (roberth) | ohh saw the OP but glossed over the matrix thread - well good to have the context in github as well I guess | 14:50:44 |
Matt Sturgeon | Don't blame you, it ended up being a long thread (as usual!) | 14:51:11 |
Matt Sturgeon | Thanks again Robert Hensing (roberth) for your feedback and for reminding me of your existing proposals! I've posted my initial thoughts on github. And further; Reading through your simple/minimal module eval proposal, I think that's a great solution provided defining config from outside the simple-module type looks the same as defining config for a submodule type; i.e. many of the features you mention arent supported ( Enforcing one module/option per attr level (i.e. no nested options) sounds like a reasonable simplification too. My main concern is that "perfection" here may be acting as the enemy of "good"; i.e. your proposal is great, but will be much more effort to actually get merged into nixpkgs. From a different perspective, there's also some simplicity in not reinventing the wheel here, just to support one small feature ( | 15:19:50 |
Matt Sturgeon | Hm, I'm not sure why I was under the impression that the If we can define nested | 15:29:31 |
Matt Sturgeon | * Hm, I'm not sure why I was under the impression that the If we can define nested | 15:30:22 |
Robert Hensing (roberth) | Yeah records can have any type in their fields, including other records. It's simpler, lazier and more efficient that way. | 16:28:23 |
nbp | I have no time this week, I might give it a look next week if needed. | 16:39:28 |
Matt Sturgeon | I'll play around with adding optionalFields to types.record , won't have anything "finished" today though. I believe after that it's just adding docs and getting reviews? | 16:42:06 |
Matt Sturgeon | I have a draft PR up based on Robert Hensing (roberth)'s prior work, seems to be working but haven't polished it up or thoroughly tested it yet. | 17:58:12 |
15 Aug 2024 | ||
mr-qubo | I'm using modules in my nixos config. For every user in my config I write something like this:
Is it possible to somehow extend | 21:51:03 |
Matt Sturgeon | If you just want to include hm-common for all users, have you considered home-manager's sharedModules option? | 22:15:46 |
nbp | mr-qubo: yes, by extending the option declaration.
| 22:26:32 |
nbp | * mr-qubo: yes, by extending the option declaration.
| 22:29:01 |
16 Aug 2024 | ||
SebTM | Hey, I'm trying to access pkgs.system in a nixosModule for "imports" to determinate if I want to load a certain module based on x86 or aarch64 - but it goes to infinite recursion encountered while when using it in e.g. options it works? (tested with builtins.trace) | 07:44:07 |
Matt Sturgeon |
One approach would be to always load the module, but only enable its options on certain systems. | 12:24:53 |
Matt Sturgeon | Another approach would be to check
(Same applies to wrappers, such as | 14:26:54 |
17 Aug 2024 | ||
Matt Sturgeon | * Another approach would be to check
(Same applies to wrappers, such as | 22:17:28 |
Matt Sturgeon | * SebTM One approach would be to always load the module, but only enable its options on certain systems. | 22:17:41 |
Matt Sturgeon | * Another approach would be to check
(Same applies to wrappers, such as | 22:18:02 |
Matt Sturgeon | Anyone know why overriding an option-type's E.g. I have a submodule with a deprecated sub-option. Since the submodule's final value is often fully evaluated (e.g. printed to lua using I figured I could do something like:
However this doesn't seem to have any effect, For this specific example, I could use an option's I had a the same issue a few weeks ago when extending Seeing as | 22:31:16 |