From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Subject: Re: Naming scheme for Python packages
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:51:17 +0200
Message-ID: <20130908145117.GA6642@debian>
References: <E1VHJTB-0006ys-7X@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87li3c8g56.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20130904210836.GB8425@debian> <20130904213224.GA8767@debian>
	<87hadz5spg.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906215311.GB15258@debian>
	<877ges94qk.fsf@gnu.org> <20130907212513.GA27881@debian>
	<87hadv1kd0.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43124)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1VIgKu-000403-N5
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:51:43 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1VIgKo-0006Lp-Fg
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:51:36 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87hadv1kd0.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:03:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:
> separate ‘package-with-name-prefix’ procedure, such that we would do:
>   (define package-with-python-2
>      (compose (cut package-with-name-prefix <> "python2-")
>               (cut package-with-explicit-python <> python-2)))
> WDYT?

I think one function is enough; there is not much benefit in striving
for maximal generality here, since these two operations should always
be linked in our context.

> (I would use an internal ‘define’ like this, rather than ‘let’, to
> introduce the ‘rewrite’ procedure; that doesn’t change the semantics,
> but I find it easier to read.)

Ah, but that is less functional, no? ;-)

Thanks for the other suggestions, which look quite interesting. The current
solution looks easier to a Scheme neophyte like me, and as there is no major
objection, I am going to push the patch as it is.

This will allow us to go forward with the other problems in the python build
system, and hopefully package a few more modules!

Andreas