From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57308) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hh90j-0007S8-DM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 04:47:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hh90h-0007N3-6g for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 04:47:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58126) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hh90h-0007Ms-3k for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 04:47:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hh90g-0004cS-V0 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 04:47:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#35790] [PATCH] scripts: lint: Separate the message warning text and data. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87pnnpj15u.fsf@gnu.org> <20190616125608.15690-1-mail@cbaines.net> <87y31rcrc4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <87y31rcrc4.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:46:44 +0100 Message-ID: <87zhm0lqx7.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 35790@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello, > > Christopher Baines skribis: > >> +(define-syntax make-warning >> + (syntax-rules (G_) >> + ((_ package (G_ message) rest ...) >> + (%make-warning package message rest ...)) >> + ((_ package message rest ...) >> + (%make-warning package message rest ...)))) > > I think you can remove the second clause: that will ensure we never > forget to add a G_ around messages. Sure, there was one case where this clause was used, but I've switched that to call %make-warning directly, and added a comment: (define (check-patch-file-names package) "Emit a warning if the patches requires by PACKAGE are badly named or i= f the patch could not be found." (guard (c ((message-condition? c) ;raised by 'search-patch' (list ;; Use %make-warning, as condition-mesasge is already ;; translated. (%make-warning package (condition-message c) #:field 'patch-file-names)))) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAl0XJXRfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XcoChAApuf5+XXBmKcei2GU/0tBeOfXG65WBSCaqptVHYcBk9684JuP1c+6BnGd IvYnOC7q4gRmeF9mdzqcFxQpKtI5STb5qLrMePiQtHYKLi73kuLo62R06f9yOD4D nVriXywOSfQ2GDwaIRYH+J6fPgiGQYKSz0MrBPmorcEKYO/B2kASV246p7mXPBLI tZz5HwTX7RTziX5cH8mgs6VaAOR12YombJneZUuWzbBKeUT0HYWcYp0xqOPpMaqc wU6t7X+Jvnp7aFNdjxGoRely+pLM59uH5xfPO+QKBKawoR97HL8AHUZR7c0JFkD2 bhKR64TGEWAGBTiyaXpXdUH/YEBY9tDEOXmCtksER+cZ3g24N9/UoHPh8KIGrE8x ZLAoCRoZp6ItXyqpmAg6hMiEDzGc1Dv2TXIy0VQXJo6a+VgUvR+bb1o9B9c5Krv9 BUxiTCxHNlQo3P0f7vbIWgS6H7iRG4oGMMsO0NVGZOQoHGsTy4WIjO9YOm/VRKww 59EHMxMh9WanaXkNxeJmxvrj5/SIZ87n/naAJj78TDqSeGmZd2Unh0YOcy9MnQg3 ONs0Xl6k47Jvo2G86z/GAfFHrPnC53t1ZvFUhhQDQ9/iMQHa28BmoEU2RjN54mVt mxuZ+pl/aWpXj4bke162wW3Tk3lR31LpKEQZyHvvTOGfQxQrOJc= =VSre -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--