GNU bug report logs - #57090
'guix style' pretty-printer always renders integers as base10

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 57090 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 57090 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Rodriguez <yewscion <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: [BUG] Default Notation for chmod in guix style?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 16:47:58 -0400

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

Hello,

I've noticed that, when I explicitly declare absolute permissions in
octal during a (chmod …) in my package definitions and then run guix
style, it converts them to decimal instead.

Is this intended? I've gotten feedback and agree that octal (#o755) is
much clearer to read than decimal (493), simply because I'm used to the
actual unix chmod tool and its conventions.

--

Christopher Rodriguez

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

Message #8 received at 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
To: Christopher Rodriguez <yewscion <at> gmail.com>, 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 ludo <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#57090: [BUG] Default Notation for chmod in guix style?
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:59:11 +0200

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

Note: No need for [BUG] prefixes -- they are prefixed automatically by 
bug#NNNNN and the bug tracker is either for bugs or patches, and the 
latter has the [PATCH ...] convention. No harm though.

On 09-08-2022 22:47, Christopher Rodriguez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that, when I explicitly declare absolute permissions in
> octal during a (chmod …) in my package definitions and then run guix
> style, it converts them to decimal instead.
>
> Is this intended? I've gotten feedback and agree that octal (#o755) is
> much clearer to read than decimal (493), simply because I'm used to the
> actual unix chmod tool and its conventions.
>
> --
>
> Christopher Rodriguez

'chmod' is not mentioned anywhere in (guix scripts style), so I'd think 
it's just an oversight. The authority on the matter would be Ludovic 
Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Disclaimer: I'm the one that wrote that feedback. Let's not double-count 
my non-existent 'votes'.

Greetings,
Maxime

[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]

[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #11 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Csepp <raingloom <at> riseup.net>
To: Christopher Rodriguez <yewscion <at> gmail.com>
Cc: bug-guix <at> gnu.org, 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#57090: [BUG] Default Notation for chmod in guix style?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 21:01:15 +0000

Christopher Rodriguez <yewscion <at> gmail.com> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that, when I explicitly declare absolute permissions in
> octal during a (chmod …) in my package definitions and then run guix
> style, it converts them to decimal instead.
>
> Is this intended? I've gotten feedback and agree that octal (#o755) is
> much clearer to read than decimal (493), simply because I'm used to the
> actual unix chmod tool and its conventions.

Seems to be a Scheme limitation:

```
scheme@(guile-user)> '(#o10)
$1 = (8)
```

Message #17 received at 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
To: "Maxime Devos" <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>, "Christopher Rodriguez"
 <yewscion <at> gmail.com>, <57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>, <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#57090: [BUG] Default Notation for chmod in guix style?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 22:04:24 +0100

On Tue Aug 9, 2022 at 9:59 PM BST, Maxime Devos wrote:
> 'chmod' is not mentioned anywhere in (guix scripts style), so I'd think 
> it's just an oversight. The authority on the matter would be Ludovic 
> Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>

Is it possible that (guix read-print) stores octal numbers directly as
Scheme numbers, with no way to distinguish them from decimal numbers,
which means when they are printed they are just treated as base10? I
poked around a bit in the module but couldn't find the code for number
reading.

    -- (

Message #20 received at 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
To: "Csepp" <raingloom <at> riseup.net>, "Christopher Rodriguez"
 <yewscion <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#57090: [BUG] Default Notation for chmod in guix style?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 22:08:53 +0100

On Tue Aug 9, 2022 at 10:01 PM BST, Csepp wrote:
> Seems to be a Scheme limitation:
>
> ```
> scheme@(guile-user)> '(#o10)
> $1 = (8)
> ```

`guix style` uses a completely seperate reader, defined
in (guix read-print), so even though it's possible it has
the same limitation, we could easily modify it to support
octal/hexadecimal/binary numbers.

    -- (

Message #23 received at 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
Cc: 57090 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Rodriguez <yewscion <at> gmail.com>,
 Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Subject: Re: bug#57090: [BUG] Default Notation for chmod in guix style?
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 23:12:20 +0200

Hi,

"(" <paren <at> disroot.org> skribis:

> On Tue Aug 9, 2022 at 9:59 PM BST, Maxime Devos wrote:
>> 'chmod' is not mentioned anywhere in (guix scripts style), so I'd think 
>> it's just an oversight. The authority on the matter would be Ludovic 
>> Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
>
> Is it possible that (guix read-print) stores octal numbers directly as
> Scheme numbers, with no way to distinguish them from decimal numbers,
> which means when they are printed they are just treated as base10? I
> poked around a bit in the module but couldn't find the code for number
> reading.

Indeed, the reader is basically a wrapper around ‘read’.  It preserves
comments and vertical space, but it doesn’t attempt to preserve the
style of numbers (base, etc.), strings (whether \n & co. are escaped or
literal), and so on.  I think that’d be a bit too much honestly.

Now, we could tweak the pretty printer so that it recognizes patterns
where numbers or strings should be printed in a certain way.

Help welcome! :-)

Ludo’.

Message #30 received at 57090-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: "(" <paren <at> disroot.org>
Cc: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>,
 Christopher Rodriguez <yewscion <at> gmail.com>, 57090-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#57090: 'guix style' pretty-printer always renders integers
 as base10
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2022 18:43:22 +0200

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> Now, we could tweak the pretty printer so that it recognizes patterns
> where numbers or strings should be printed in a certain way.

I did that in c3b1cfe76b7038f4030d7d207ffc417fed9a7ead.  Lemme know how
you like it!  :-)

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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