bug#44254: Performance of package input rewriting

[Lars-Dominik Braun <ldb@leibniz-psychology.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

Hi Ludo,

> I guess it’s easy to end up creating huge object graphs.  Here’s an
> example of an anti-pattern:
> 
>   (define a
>     ((package-input-rewriting x) ((package-input-rewriting y) p1))) 
> 
>   (define b
>     ((package-input-rewriting x) ((package-input-rewriting y) p2)))
> 
> The correct use is:
> 
>   (define transform
>     (package-input-rewriting (append x y)))
> 
>   (define a (transform p1))
>   (define b (transform p2))
that sounds like a section for the cookbook :)

> It seems to me that you’re redefining a dependency graph, node by node.
> Thus, you probably don’t need ‘package-input-rewriting’ here.  What you
> did in Guix-Science commit 972795a23cc9eb5a0bb1a2ffb5681d151fc4d4b0
> looks more appropriate to me, in terms of style and semantics.
Okay, got it. My initial concern was that rewriting the graph “by hand” (i.e.
alist-delete) would be tedious and error-prone.

Thank you very much,
Lars

-- 
Lars-Dominik Braun
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter/Research Associate
www.leibniz-psychology.org
ZPID - Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie /
ZPID - Leibniz Institute for Psychology
Universitätsring 15
D-54296 Trier - Germany
Tel.: +49–651–201-4964

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]