From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: bug#15284: wish: make the (name) field optional
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:06:49 +0200
Message-ID: <87k3iu2lye.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <8761ueqq09.wl%arne_bab@web.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41300)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1VHuoi-00016i-91
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:07:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1VHuoZ-0006yF-LI
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:07:12 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35172)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1VHuoZ-0006xW-Fp
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:07:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1VHuoY-0003Wq-LM
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 08:07:02 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.15284.B15284.137846921613552@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <8761ueqq09.wl%arne_bab@web.de> (Arne Babenhauserheide's message
	of "Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:05:26 +0200")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>
Cc: 15284@debbugs.gnu.org

Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de> skribis:

> Currently when defining a package, I have to write the name at least
> twice:
>
> (define-public NAME
>   (name "NAME"))
>
> This gives the flexibility to use different names for the visual
> output and the technical name. But for most packages it likely just
> adds useless duplication.
>
> So I think the (name) field should be optional, and if it is not
> present, the packages technical name should be used automatically.

As discussed on IRC, the main issue is that package objects exist
whether or not the exist a variable bound to them; and really there can
be any number of variables whose value is a given package object.  IOW,
there is no direct connection between the variable name and the package
name.

That said, for cases like the above, we could have:

  (define-syntax-rule (define-package package-name fields ...)
    (define-public package-name
      (package
        (name (symbol->string 'package-name))
        fields ...)))

However, I prefer treating packages just like any other Scheme object,
and to avoid introducing =E2=80=9Cmagic=E2=80=9D with macros like this.

WDYT?

Ludo=E2=80=99.