From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Some macros to make package definitions prettier
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:52:54 +0100
Message-ID: <87lhjdks21.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <874mqa6iz4.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87bnkhzhxd.fsf@gnu.org>
	<877fv553ss.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87y4nkwdxm.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87wq2ydo1o.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <878ufdretg.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87oao9em0y.fsf@taylan.uni.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45286)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YT5zG-00046X-4T
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 04:53:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1YT5zC-0002vf-Jj
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 04:53:06 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54115)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1YT5zC-0002vX-H3
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 04:53:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87oao9em0y.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> ("Taylan Ulrich
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=5C\=22Bay\=C4\=B1rl\=C4\=B1\=2FKammer\=5C\=22\=22's\?\=
	message of "Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:47:25 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer=22?= <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> I actually agree.  Well, next round?
>
> If you want. :-) I thought it might be too much to have a second commit
> that touches all recipes where 'modify-phases' is used, but maybe I'm
> being too pedantic.

Currently =E2=80=98modify-phases=E2=80=99 is only used in build systems, so=
 it=E2=80=99s not too
late.

>> In think Guile 2.1 is standards-compliant in that respect though.  A
>> related problem will be the =E2=80=98_=E2=80=99 procedure of (guix ui) t=
hat will need
>> to be renamed (which is annoying at worst, but OK.)  =E2=80=98delete=E2=
=80=99 might be
>> more of a problem.
>
> Hm, if Guile 2.1 intends to have a fully hygienic syntax-rules by
> default, I would expect it to offer a way to enable the alternative
> behavior for a given syntax-rules usage, because AFAIK it's quite common
> (if not more common) that unhygienic matching is desired.

Yeah I have mixed feelings about it.

> Otherwise, we could just use slightly different identifiers:
> phase-delete, phase-replace, phase-add-before, phase-add-after.

This is an example of an undesirable side effect.  :-)

Ludo=E2=80=99.