From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60620) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKIzb-0006Nf-4N for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:52:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKIza-0006u4-5Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:52:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57872) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKIza-0006tJ-2Q for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:52:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jKIza-0007PP-1O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 05:52:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#40373] [PATCH] guix: new command "guix run-script" Resent-Message-ID: From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <875zeiudjm.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 11:51:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Konrad Hinsen's message of "Thu, 02 Apr 2020 09:13:23 +0200") Message-ID: <87mu7slwwh.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: 40373@debbugs.gnu.org Hello, Konrad Hinsen skribis: > The other is that I am in tutorial-driven development mode: I need "guix > run-script" in order to be able to insert my own scripts (for analyzing > dependencies) into a Guix tutorial for an upcoming MOOC. So I need to > make sure that people can run my scripts easily, but also that they > understand what they are doing. A command that does something else than > its name suggests, with a similarity that is only visible to experts, > is no good for use in a tutorial. I see. (I have to ponder this a bit more.) > I am of course aware that much of the code in "run-script" is the same > as in "repl", which is not good. Yes, we can probably factorize a bit. We must make sure =E2=80=98-q=E2=80= =99 is not implemented by this command; =E2=80=98-t=E2=80=99 is also useless. > But I'd rather think about a better framework for code sharing among > Guix scripts than about pushing too much semantic differences into > obscure options. An example would be reusable "option clusters", such > as "options for Guile" or "options for channels". We do have that with =E2=80=98%standard-build-options=E2=80=99, for instanc= e, although not as nicely-structured as we=E2=80=99d like (in general, I=E2=80=99d pref= er to have a GNU argp-style command-line API than what we have). Ludo=E2=80=99.