Recommend order for package fields?

Recommend order for package fields?

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Sun, 07 Nov 2021 at 13:40, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:

> So the de-facto ordering of common fields is something like:
>
> name
> version
> source
> build-system
> outputs ; a bit inconsistent, yes, and sometimes put after *inputs
> arguments ; to the build-system
> native-inputs, inputs, propagated-inputs
> metadata: synopsis, description, home-page, properties, license…
>
> There's some minor variation in where to put inputs, but 
> (build-system trivial-build-system) definitely belongs here, above 
> arguments, no matter what.

Does it make sense to add this ordering advice in the manual?  Somewhere
under section “Contributing”.

Especially when there is probably some issues with the semantic, for
instance, compare [1] corner cases:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix repl
GNU Guile 3.0.7
Copyright (C) 1995-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Guile comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `,show w'.
This program is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `,show c' for details.

Enter `,help' for help.
scheme@(guix-user)> (let ((name "OUTER"))
  (package-version
   (package
     (version name)
     (name "name")
     (source #f)
     (build-system #f)
     (synopsis #f)
     (description #f)
     (license #f)
     (home-page #f))))

$1 = "OUTER"
scheme@(guix-user)> (let ((name "OUTER"))
  (package-version
   (package
     (name "INNER")
     (version name)
     (source #f)
     (build-system #f)
     (synopsis #f)
     (description #f)
     (license #f)
     (home-page #f))))
$2 = "INNER"
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

where a record field refers to another defined record field.


If yes, why not add a checker for “guix lint” for warning that?  And
obviously, it could be nice to have an automatic tool for formatting;
something similar as etc/indent-code.el for ordering packages. ;-)

Cheers,
simon


1: <https://yhetil.org/guix/20201204161257.64363a5a@scratchpost.org/>

Re: Recommend order for package fields?

[Katherine Cox-Buday]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> And obviously, it could be nice to have an automatic tool for formatting; > something similar as etc/indent-code.el for ordering packages. ;-)

And cleaning up unused imports too! Does such a thing exist for Guile in general?

-- 
Katherine

Re: Recommend order for package fields?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> skribis:

> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And obviously, it could be nice to have an automatic tool for formatting; > something similar as etc/indent-code.el for ordering packages. ;-)
>
> And cleaning up unused imports too! Does such a thing exist for Guile in general?

Unfortunately no.

Ludo’.

Re: Recommend order for package fields?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On Sun, 07 Nov 2021 at 13:40, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> So the de-facto ordering of common fields is something like:
>>
>> name
>> version
>> source
>> build-system
>> outputs ; a bit inconsistent, yes, and sometimes put after *inputs
>> arguments ; to the build-system
>> native-inputs, inputs, propagated-inputs
>> metadata: synopsis, description, home-page, properties, license…
>>
>> There's some minor variation in where to put inputs, but 
>> (build-system trivial-build-system) definitely belongs here, above 
>> arguments, no matter what.
>
> Does it make sense to add this ordering advice in the manual?  Somewhere
> under section “Contributing”.

I don’t think so; examples in the manual, ‘guix import’, etc. are
already mostly consistent.

> Especially when there is probably some issues with the semantic, for
> instance, compare [1] corner cases:

It’s not a corner case, it’s lexical scoping.  :-)

> If yes, why not add a checker for “guix lint” for warning that?  And
> obviously, it could be nice to have an automatic tool for formatting;
> something similar as etc/indent-code.el for ordering packages. ;-)

I think ‘guix style’ should eventually be improved to replace
etc/indent-code.el.  We could augment it with specific stylers, such as
alphabetically sorting inputs.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Recommend order for package fields?

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 12:18, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> I don’t think so; examples in the manual, ‘guix import’, etc. are
> already mostly consistent.

From my point of view, an explicit recommendation is always better
than an implicit one.  If it is already consistent and defacto
ordering, it costs nothing to write down such as a recommendation and
it helps, IMHO.

(On a side note, IMHO, similar issues with packages sorted or not
depending on the phase of the Moon, mostly, or with inputs sorted or
not depending on the phase of the Moon, mostly. ;-))


> > Especially when there is probably some issues with the semantic, for
> > instance, compare [1] corner cases:
>
> It’s not a corner case, it’s lexical scoping.  :-)

Thanks for explaining. :-)  Let rephrase: compare different behaviours
[1] depending on lexical scope which is odd in the framework of
"declarative".  Anyway, your point is: it is a feature, not an issue,
IIUC.


> > If yes, why not add a checker for “guix lint” for warning that?  And
> > obviously, it could be nice to have an automatic tool for formatting;
> > something similar as etc/indent-code.el for ordering packages. ;-)
>
> I think ‘guix style’ should eventually be improved to replace
> etc/indent-code.el.  We could augment it with specific stylers, such as
> alphabetically sorting inputs.

Ah yes I have forgotten about "guix style".  :-)


Cheers,
simon

Re: Recommend order for package fields?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> Thanks for explaining. :-)  Let rephrase: compare different behaviours
> [1] depending on lexical scope which is odd in the framework of
> "declarative".  Anyway, your point is: it is a feature, not an issue,
> IIUC.

Exactly.  :-)

We’re verrrry far from having the kind of inconsistency I observed in
Nixpkgs back when I contributed.  And I think the difference mostly lies
in how people work together; it’s a social issue.

Ludo’.