Re: [PATCH 07/43] gnu: Add ghc-haskeline.

[ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>]

ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:

> Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> writes:
>
>> On Sun,  4 Sep 2016 16:17:06 +0000
>> ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> wrote:
>>
>>> * gnu/packages/haskell.scm (ghc-haskeline): New variable.
>>> ---
>>>  gnu/packages/haskell.scm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/haskell.scm b/gnu/packages/haskell.scm
>>> index f3d43c4..8c6aee0 100644
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/haskell.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/haskell.scm
>>> @@ -6558,4 +6558,29 @@ via bindings to the curses library.  Terminfo allows POSIX systems
>>>  to interact with a variety of terminals using a standard set of capabilities.")
>>>      (license license:bsd-3)))
>>>  
>>> +(define-public ghc-haskeline
>>> +  (package
>>> +    (name "ghc-haskeline")
>>> +    (version "0.7.2.3")
>>> +    (source
>>> +     (origin
>>> +       (method url-fetch)
>>> +       (uri (string-append
>>> +             "https://hackage.haskell.org/package/haskeline/haskeline-"
>>> +             version ".tar.gz"))
>>> +       (sha256
>>> +        (base32
>>> +         "09wd6sxgn65xxpk7dhy1cg3ywlbk0ccqq7xylycwk4zazy3gjgkd"))))
>>> +    (build-system haskell-build-system)
>>> +    (inputs
>>> +     `(("ghc-terminfo" ,ghc-terminfo)))
>>> +    (home-page "https://github.com/judah/haskeline")
>>> +    (synopsis "A command-line interface for user input, written in Haskell.")
>>                   ^
>> Could you run these packages through 'guix lint'?  It should warn about
>> the "A" at the beginning of a synopsis.
>
> Okay, thanks for spotting it.
>
>>> +    (description
>>> +     "Haskeline provides a user interface for line input in command-line
>>> +programs.  This library is similar in purpose to readline, but since it
>>> +is written in Haskell it is (hopefully) more easily used in other Haskell
>>> +programs.")
>>> +    (license license:bsd-3)))
>>> +
>>>  ;;; haskell.scm ends here
>>
>> While adding ghc packages in the past, I've tried to keep the packages
>> alphabetically sorted.  I'm not sure whether there's concensus on doing
>> that.  We have 'guix edit', but for catch-all modules like (gnu
>> packages haskell) I think it's still nice to have some semblance of
>> order. We added a plea message at the top of gnu/packages/python.scm;
>> maybe we should add one to gnu/packages/haskell.scm.  What do others
>> think?
>>
>> `~Eric
>
> I find it time consuming to search for the place in a file the length of
> perl.scm, haskell.scm, python.scm to fit in my packages.
>
> I think for haskell this was not 100% sorted, for perl there's almost
> A-Z sorting.
>
> It's nice to have, but the more these files grow, the more time you
> spend with correcting the commits where the A-Z plea message was
> ignored or overlooked.
> If all of them were sorted and it would be pointed out in
> "Documentation > Contributing" I'd agree, but at the moment I won't fix
> this patch series.
>
> Usually for these long files I just do an "M-g g 80000" to jump to the
> very end.

Just to add to this: I'm okay with this, I do it for perl and python
when I can, but this patchseries is just too long to shuffle it all
around for no actual improvement in code.
As the modules grow in lines of code, we should add this to
documentation that at least a first letter should be sorted
alphabetically, though it should not be an absolute requirement for
various reasons.
In my opinion if you search for a package name you will find out the
line and file where it starts, which is enough.
-- 
ng0
For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org