Re: [PATCH 0/1] Move cursynth to music.scm

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:15PM -0600, Eric Bavier wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:09:09 -0500
>>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > I think it would be better for this software synthesizer to be in
>>> > music.scm.
>>> > 
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> IIRC, the original thought was that many GNU packages have their own
>>> modules, so this was done for cursynth as well.
>>
>> Okay, sure.
>
> I think it would be nice to have cursynth in “music.scm”.

+1

>> To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind grouping packages
>> into modules. Is it just for humans or is there some technical reason
>> for it?
>
> It’s mostly for humans AFAIU.  Personally, I prefer try to avoid a
> proliferation of one-off modules; maybe because I don’t like the
> boilerplate (license header, module definition with imports, adding the
> module to “gnu-system.am”).

Same here.

More modules also lead to more I/O for the various commands.

Ludo’.