GNU bug report logs -
#56799
(gnu services configuration) usage of *unspecified* is problematic
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer 写道:
> For some background reading, see [0].
Thanks for the well-thought-out reply, and sharing this
interesting link!
Now, it's just the musings of one person, but now I think I do
agree with (what I think is) the underlying vision: to hush up
*unspecified* and sneakily replace it with true nothingness. OK,
I can live with that. :-)
> I think the semantic of the language is that it is to be used as
> the
> lack of a return value from a procedure or syntax, e.g.:
>
> (unspecified? (if #f 'one-arm-if)) -> #t
Well… in the above context I'd hesitate to even imply ‘semantics’.
It's like undefined behaviour in C. Ascribe it meaning at your
peril. Otherwise, point taken.
> Having 'unspecified?' even defined in Guile seems to go against
> that
> idea; perhaps because Wingo themselves seems to disagree in [0].
Agreed. *This* was one of my reasons for supporting (field
*unspecified*), so it's nice to have it validated, even if it is
rejected.
> I'm also thinking 'unspecified being too close to *unspecified*
> is
> probably going to cause confusion down the line. Reverting to
> the
> originally used 'disabled may be the lesser evil.
Ah, here I can concentrate all my previous disagreement: hell no
:-)
It is the worstest evil; literally anything is better than
(enable-foo? 'disabled) defaulting to #t.
Bikeshed this all y'all want, but 'default or 'unset or 'whatever
are miles better.
Kind regards,
T G-R
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 328 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.