From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: (Geiser or guile bug) Guix-daemon output is missing Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:44:28 +0300 Message-ID: <87egi6usur.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87d1xvx6lb.fsf@gmail.com> <87lhcj44qc.fsf@gnu.org> <87613jsfnw.fsf@gmail.com> <87bndbs68l.fsf@gnu.org> <871te7s2vh.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51937) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Za4xa-00071o-UI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:44:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Za4xX-0006HN-Nm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:44:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <871te7s2vh.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:24:02 +0300") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost (2015-09-10 00:24 +0300) wrote: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2015-09-09 23:11 +0300) wrote: > >> Alex Kost skribis: >> >>> As a workaround for this issue it was proposed=C2=B9 to transform >>> =E2=80=98current-build-output-port=E2=80=99 into a procedure (I have ch= ecked that it >>> solves the problem). What do you think about it? Perhaps to make sure >>> that the port will be always the same define it like this: >>> >>> (define current-build-output-port (memoize current-error-port)) >>> >>> Is it acceptable? >> >> No, =E2=80=98current-build-output-port=E2=80=99 should remain a SRFI-39 = parameter so >> that callers can easily rebind it. >> >> However, perhaps the guix.el code could do: >> >> (current-build-output-port (current-error-port)) >> >> at startup; would that be doable? > > (IMO it would be so ugly, that I should say: "no") After thinking more, I had an idea how to make a not-so-ugly workaround, so "yes", I think I'll do a workaround on elisp side. --=20 Alex