Re: Announcing emacs-guix-packaging

[John Soo <jsoo1@asu.edu>]

Hi Zomoun,

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

> $ ag '\(@' --scheme $(guix build emacs-guix -S)
> /gnu/store/…-emacs-guix-0.5.2-2.58a840d-checkout/scheme/emacs-guix/actions.scm
> 200:            ((@@ (guix scripts build) log-url) store file))))))
>
> /gnu/store/…-emacs-guix-0.5.2-2.58a840d-checkout/scheme/emacs-guix/system.scm
> 55:       ((@@ (gnu system) operating-system-firmware) os)))
>
> /gnu/store/…-emacs-guix-0.5.2-2.58a840d-checkout/scheme/emacs-guix/pack.scm
> 31:  (map (@@ (guix scripts pack) compressor-name)
> 32:       (@@ (guix scripts pack) %compressors)))
> 40:              (@@ (guix scripts pack) %formats)))
>
> /gnu/store/…-emacs-guix-0.5.2-2.58a840d-checkout/scheme/emacs-guix/profiles.scm
> 123:  (@@ (guix scripts package) search-path-environment-variables))
>
> On the other hand, we could ask if these should not be part of the API.
> The “(guix scrip <foo>)” seems a good clue. ;-)
>
> From my point of view, your concern is not a real issue here.

I agree. However I do think those bindings from (guix scripts ...) are
good candidates to be public. Programmatic access to things that cli
users already knows is probably a nice entrypoint for anyone wanting to
start using guix as a scheme library.

I sent patches to expose those bindings: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/44619

> Well, maybe invoking “guix repl” is the fastest way to write plumbing
> interfaces avoiding the tough binding.

Is inferior-lisp an option? Or is it more specifically used for Common
Lisp family lisps?

Thanks,

John