From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Syntax for package inputs
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 21:28:30 +0200
Message-ID: <87h9r9n0rl.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
References: <87pp62iqmn.fsf@fsf.org> <87egmgu609.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87zj5380v4.fsf@fsf.org> <877fs7j6oh.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87twvb7wrs.fsf@fsf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46631)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YuQiQ-0007aU-7D
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:28:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YuQiL-0004ZV-Fe
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:28:42 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34592)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1YuQiL-0004Z9-8g
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 May 2015 15:28:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87twvb7wrs.fsf@fsf.org> (David Thompson's message of "Sun, 17
	May 2015 16:51:35 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<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: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> (FWIW I=E2=80=99m not fond of the `(,gcc-toolchain "debug") notation tha=
t we
>> also use in packages, but it has the advantage of being concise.)
>
> Do you have plans to introduce a better notation?  G-exps?

No concrete plan yet.  A remote possibility might be to indeed rely more
on gexps and maybe get rid of input labels, like:

  (define foo
    (package
      ;; ...
      (inputs (list guile-2.0 gtk+ (gexp-input glib "bin")))))

but this introduces other challenges in particular wrt. package
customizations.  So, we=E2=80=99ll see.

However, for new APIs, I find it usually better to use the above gexp
style rather than the current package-input style.

Ludo=E2=80=99.