So `nix do nix` would do nothing?
(Joke for the germans)
I like the idea of having `nix do`.
On 23-01-2016 17:11:15, Oliver Charles wrote:
> `nix do`? :)
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:59 PM Matthias Beyer
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 23-01-2016 17:39:09, Christian
Hi,
a colleague told me this discussion started at the conference, so I’m even more
sad I couldn’t make it!
I like the direction where this is going a lot. A big +1 from my side.
As a suggestion to the transactional behaviour, I’d like to avoid unnecessary
shell quoting. How about “+” instead
Hi,
On 23-01-2016 17:39:09, Christian Theune wrote:
>
> I like the direction where this is going a lot. A big +1 from my side.
Same here.
>
> As a suggestion to the transactional behaviour, I’d like to avoid unnecessary
> shell quoting. How about “+” instead of “;"? I could imagine another
`nix do`? :)
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:59 PM Matthias Beyer
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23-01-2016 17:39:09, Christian Theune wrote:
> >
> > I like the direction where this is going a lot. A big +1 from my side.
>
> Same here.
>
> >
> > As a suggestion to the transactional
On Sat, 2016-01-23 at 17:59 +0100, Matthias Beyer wrote:
> > As a suggestion to the transactional behaviour, I’d like to avoid
> > unnecessary shell quoting. How about “+” instead of “;"? I could
> > imagine another non-colliding operator from the nix language, but
> > “;” as a statement separator
We're at 68% of the goal with 34 donations. Thanks!
You can still donate at https://www.gofundme.com/htuafwrg/
I'd like to ask meetup organizers to spread out the word so we can make
this happen.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Christian Theune
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> don’t
+1 on the user-level configuration.nix.
Could we also use this to bring dotfiles into the nix fold?
I'm not sure what the current system for dotfile management is, but my
impression is it is close to nonexistant. It would be nice to add this to the
nix way of managing things. A user-level