From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Naming scheme for Python packages Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:00:19 +0200 Message-ID: <87vc2bytgs.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87li3c8g56.fsf@gnu.org> <20130904210836.GB8425@debian> <20130904213224.GA8767@debian> <87hadz5spg.fsf@gnu.org> <20130906215311.GB15258@debian> <877ges94qk.fsf@gnu.org> <20130907212513.GA27881@debian> <87hadv1kd0.fsf@gnu.org> <20130908145117.GA6642@debian> 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]:57609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VIlEe-0002wB-3q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:05:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VIlEX-00070h-QH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:05:28 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:43851) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VIlEX-00070d-KZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:05:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130908145117.GA6642@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:51:17 +0200") List-Id: 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: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge skribis: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:03:23PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Andreas Enge skribis: >> separate =E2=80=98package-with-name-prefix=E2=80=99 procedure, such that= we would do: >> (define package-with-python-2 >> (compose (cut package-with-name-prefix <> "python2-") >> (cut package-with-explicit-python <> python-2))) >> WDYT? > > I think one function is enough; there is not much benefit in striving > for maximal generality here, since these two operations should always > be linked in our context. Yeah, right. >> (I would use an internal =E2=80=98define=E2=80=99 like this, rather than= =E2=80=98let=E2=80=99, to >> introduce the =E2=80=98rewrite=E2=80=99 procedure; that doesn=E2=80=99t = change the semantics, >> but I find it easier to read.) > > Ah, but that is less functional, no? ;-) No; internal =E2=80=98define=E2=80=99 is just syntactic sugar equivalent to= =E2=80=98letrec*=E2=80=99. > Thanks for the other suggestions, which look quite interesting. The curre= nt > solution looks easier to a Scheme neophyte like me, and as there is no ma= jor > objection, I am going to push the patch as it is. > > This will allow us to go forward with the other problems in the python bu= ild > system, and hopefully package a few more modules! Excellent, thanks! Ludo=E2=80=99.