From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49083) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d9zjQ-0006u7-3q for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 16:03:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d9zjL-00018A-Ss for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 16:03:08 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42447) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d9zjL-00017s-Or for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 16:03:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9zjK-0001Nb-3z for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 16:03:03 -0400 Subject: bug#26805: [PATCH] gs-fonts: add missing podule imports Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20170506154035.23664-1-slyfox@inbox.ru> <87pofi8h6p.fsf@gnu.org> <20170509213630.7c81b553@sf> <877f1pvsfu.fsf@gnu.org> <20170510214141.60fe16d4@sf> <87inl7nmpq.fsf@gnu.org> <20170514173128.28e799a1@sf> Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 22:02:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170514173128.28e799a1@sf> (Sergei Trofimovich's message of "Sun, 14 May 2017 17:31:28 +0100") Message-ID: <87a86ftdf6.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Sergei Trofimovich Cc: 26805@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Sergei Trofimovich skribis: > On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:49:05 +0200 [...] >> >> (Alternately, we could rename SRFI-1=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98delete=E2=80= =99 in (guix build utils), >> >> so we=E2=80=99d still be matching a literal, but we=E2=80=99d have pr= oblems in places >> >> that use both (guix build utils) and (srfi srfi-1).)=20=20 [...] > Can you explain what is the problem of renaming =E2=80=98delete=E2=80=99 = from srfi-1 in > (guix build utils) module? How would hypothetical breakage happen? > Is it because 'delete' from srfi-1 and renamed binding srfi-1 are not > treated as the same binding by syntax rule? The only problem would be in packages that use both (guix build utils) and (srfi srfi-1), *and* do (modify-phase =E2=80=A6 (delete =E2=80=A6)). T= hose packages would have a syntax error due to =E2=80=98delete=E2=80=99 being shadowed by= SRFI-1=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98delete=E2=80=99. It=E2=80=99s easy to fix them, for example by using the #:prefix option when importing (srfi srfi-1)=E2=80=A6 but it=E2=80=99s also easy to miss some of= the problems. There=E2=80=99s yet another option, which is to: (define-modules (guix build utils) =E2=80=A6 #:use-module (srfi srfi-1) #:re-export (delete)) I think that one had none of the previously-discussed drawbacks. Thoughts? Would you like to give it a try? Ludo=E2=80=99.