From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=)
Subject: Re: Some macros to make package definitions prettier
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:47:25 +0100
Message-ID: <87oao9em0y.fsf@taylan.uni.cx>
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>
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]:51837)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1YSvbC-0008M0-Gs
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:47:35 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>) id 1YSvb7-0005zr-Nx
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:47:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <878ufdretg.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:44:43 +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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

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.

> 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) th=
at 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.

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

> Yes, but the package object contains quoted code, so we can=E2=80=99t dir=
ectly
> compare them for equality in this case.

Ah, I didn't think of that.

Taylan