Make everything be in the form "while ..." (most things were already),
and in particular *don't* use other propositions that must go after or
before specific "while ..." clauses to make sense.
When debugging nix expressions the outermost trace tends to be more useful
than the innermost. It is therefore printed last to save developers from
scrolling.
We used to set enforceDeterminism to true in the settings (by default)
and thus did send a non-zero value over the wire. The value should
probably be ignored as it should only matter if nrRounds is non-zero
as well.
Having the old code here where the value is expected to be zero only
works with the same version of Nix where we are sending zero. We
should always test this against older Nix versions being client or
server as otherwise upgrade in larger networks might be a pain.
Fixes 8e0946e8df
These only functioned if a very narrow combination of conditions held:
- The result path does not yet exist (--check did not result in
repeated builds), AND
- The result path is not available from any configured substituters, AND
- No remote builders that can build the path are available.
If any of these do not hold, a derivation would be built 0 or 1 times
regardless of the repeat option. Thus, remove it to avoid confusion.
The old way was not correct.
Here is an example:
```
$ nix-instantiate --eval --expr 'let x = a: throw "asdf"; in x 1' --show-trace
error: asdf
… while evaluating 'x'
at «string»:1:9:
1| let x = a: throw "asdf"; in x 1
| ^
… from call site
at «string»:1:29:
1| let x = a: throw "asdf"; in x 1
| ^
```
and yet also:
```
$ nix-instantiate --eval --expr 'let x = a: throw "asdf"; in x' --show-trace
<LAMBDA>
```
Here is the thing: in both cases we are evaluating `x`!
Nix is a higher-order languages, and functions are a sort of value. When
we write `x = a: ...`, `a: ...` is the expression that `x` is being
defined to be, and that is already a value. Therefore, we should *never*
get an trace that says "while evaluating `x`", because evaluating `a:
...` is *trival* and nothing happens during it!
What is actually happening here is we are applying `x` and evaluating
its *body* with arguments substituted for parameters. I think the
simplest way to say is just "while *calling* `x`", and so that is what I
changed it to.
Linus Heckemann
Jörg Thalheim