On 14.12.2018 11:31, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> I am not sure sure about this.  Ludovic, do we have such a thing as "source
> substitutes"?

I have searched a little bit in my store... Looks like its not the case.
After all it seems to me that this is the purpose of a source snippet.

>> I also thought about this but could not find another situation where
>> this was applicable.
> 
> Look for "emacs-build-system" in files other than emacs.scm.  It's used in quite
> a few places.

I will have a look at it.

> What emacs stuff?  You mean the build system?

Yes. With the abstraction we could only import the function and do not
need the emacs-build-system imported in modules that have nothing to do
with emacs otherwise.

>> Yes. Maybe we should add some reasoning to the commit message then?
>> Depends on whether we just want a description of the changes in a commit
>> message or also some reasoning if things might be unclear.
> 
> Well, the reasoning above is mostly a nit.  What matters most is
> - Efficiency, if it really works.
> - The abstraction function.

Then I will apply the changes to the function and send new patches when
I am done. Unless Ludo thinks differently we probably shouldn't merge

- The first two patches if they don't work like I expected them to
- The last patch in its current form until the changes are implemented
  and we can start to use the generic function in package definitions

Tim.