GNU bug report logs - #75528
[PATCH 0/2] Add apcupsd

Previous Next

Full log

Message #77 received at 75528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 75528 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#75528] [PATCH v3] services: Add power.
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 00:46:14 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Tomas,
>
> I was about to merge this, but I have one last (I promise!) question, see
> below.

No problem, I appreciate the review, it lead to higher code quality of
this series.

>
> Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> +(define apcupsd-service-type
>> +  (service-type
>> +   (name 'apcupsd)
>> +   (description "Configure and optionally start the apcupsd.")
>> +   (extensions (list (service-extension activation-service-type
>> +                                        apcupsd-activation)
>> +                     (service-extension shepherd-root-service-type
>> +                                        apcupsd-shepherd-services)
>> +                     (service-extension pam-root-service-type
>> +                                        apcupsd-pam-extensions)))
>> +   (compose identity)
>> +   (extend (lambda (cfg lst)
>> +             (fold (cut <> <>) cfg lst)))
>
> What does the above extend does?  I find the (cut <> <>) particularly
> cryptic, as it's typically used to specialize procedures, which there
> are none above.

I consider the behavior of the default #f value for extend field to be
unfortunate, so I prefer to specify extend for all my services.  Yet in
this case there is no obvious thing to extend, so I opted for the
extension to be a procedure, taking in the configuration and returning,
possibly modified, configuration.

The (cut <> <>) is just a handy, more concise way to write
(lambda (proc arg) (proc arg)).

What are your thoughts here?  Should I just drop both compose and extend
from here?  Or is it fine like this?

Tomas

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.