Hi, "guix style" occasionally makes some decision that seem a bit questionable to me. More concretely, copy the definition of guile- next, put it in a .scm and rename it, and run "guix style -L . guile-next-styleme". I get: > (define-module (test)) > (use-modules (guix packages) (guix git-download) (gnu packages autotools) (gnu packages guile) (guix utils) > (define-public guile-next > (let ((version "3.0.7") (revision "0") > (commit "d70c1dbebf9ac0fd45af4578c23983ec4a7da535")) Conventionally 'revision' is put on another line -- for these kind of let bindings, (maybe all?), I would recommend to put all of them on separate lines. > (package > (inherit guile-3.0) > (name "guile-next-styleme") > (version (git-version version revision commit)) > (source [snip, LGTM]) > (arguments > (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-3.0) > ((#:phases phases > '%standard-phases) `(modify-phases ,phases Put %standard-phases on the same line ad #:phases phases and `(modify-phases ,phases on a new lineg > (add-before 'check 'skip-failing-tests > (lambda _ > (substitute* "test-suite/standalone/test-out-of-memory" > (("!#") "!# > >(exit 77) >")) I'd prefer the original "!#\n\n(exit 77)\n" here, but I don't know if that's something 'Guix style' could feasibly do (there might be situations where a newline might be appropriate, how could "guix style" which is the case?). > (delete-file > "test-suite/tests/version.test") #t)))))) (Would be nice if "guix style" could be taught to remove those #t, but that seems more a feature limitation than a bug to me.) > (native-inputs (modify-inputs (package-native-inputs guile-3.0) > (prepend autoconf > automake > libtool > flex > gnu-gettext > texinfo > gperf))) I'd consider it tidier to put (modify-inputs ...) on a new line > (synopsis "Development version of GNU Guile")))) Question: do people agree with these style choices? Greetings, Maxime.