Assertion syntax in error in the manual? #3388
Closed
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I'm a complete neophyte to Nix, but based on the example in manual and looking in `nixpkgs` a bit it seems like the actual `assert` syntax is `assert e1 -> e2` not `assert e1; e2`. If I'm got this garbled, please ignore of course, but even if so I think it's still worth pointing out that for a new learner this explanation and example _seem_ contradictory_ as written and could probably be clarified.
|
While very often used together, |
|
Ok, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I guess part of what made this confusing for me is that the implication operator isn't introduced until after |
thufschmitt
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'm a complete neophyte to Nix, but based on the example in the manual and looking in
nixpkgsa bit it seems like the actualassertsyntax isassert e1 -> e2notassert e1; e2. If I've got this garbled, please ignore of course, but even if so I think it's still worth pointing out that for a new learner this explanation and example seem contradictory as written and could probably be clarified.