Hi,
Bruno Victal skribis:
> User-specified sanitizer support
Yay!
> ;; Suggestion #2
> ;; A user-supplied procedure ('procname' below) would work just like the
> ;; procedure in option #1.
> ;; There is some similiarity to the Guix record-type*.
> ;; This could be extended more easily in the f
Am Freitag, dem 10.03.2023 um 20:15 + schrieb jbra...@dismail.de:
> While I would agree that a guix service writer should avoid mutually
> exclusive fieldnames and instead prefer mutually exclusive records
> (and 95% of that time that will work), but may we examine it from a
> user's perspectiv
March 9, 2023 3:25 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 09.03.2023 um 02:28 + schrieb Bruno Victal:
>
> I smell bad code ahead.
>
>> We could provide procedures that validate each record type within
>> define-configuration itself instead of validating the value
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Victal writes:
> Co-authored-by: Felix Lechner
>
>
> After spending some time with old and new Guix services, I'd like to
> suggest some potential improvements to our define-configuration macro:
There seems to be some good suggestions in there, but I'm a bit
struggling to see th
Hi Attila,
Attila Lendvai writes:
> (set! config (apply-config-defaults config))
You can simply shadow the config variable rather than setting its value,
using (let ((config (...))) ...) or even define if you're in the right
form.
Best,
--
Josselin Poiret
signature.asc
Description: PGP sig
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, dem 09.03.2023 um 02:28 + schrieb Bruno Victal:
> After spending some time with old and new Guix services, I'd like to
> suggest some potential improvements to our define-configuration
> macro:
>
>
> User-specified sanitizer support
> ==
Bruno Victal writes:
> Co-authored-by: Felix Lechner
>
>
> After spending some time with old and new Guix services, I'd like to
> suggest some potential improvements to our define-configuration macro:
>
>
> User-specified sanitizer support
> ===
> Record Validator
> ===
>
> There is also a need to validate records. Matching fields alone do
> not actually ensure that the configuration is coherent and
> usable. For example, some fields may be mutually incompatible w
Co-authored-by: Felix Lechner
After spending some time with old and new Guix services, I'd like to
suggest some potential improvements to our define-configuration macro:
User-specified sanitizer support
===
The sanitiz
