From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for a new release
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:43:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ38QaLowjrKB1zg0ONNOPALB1njEwWXbG7RFJK_Gj1hxA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zhdqnndg.fsf@elephly.net>
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 22:28, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> > Right?
>
> That’s correct, but to directly access values in the “inputs” field,
> though, you’d have to use a let binding around the definition of the
> code snippet, which would be uglier.
>
> So ugly in fact that I decided to write this little procedure:
Wow! :-)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ;; Simplify access to tagged items in lists.
> (define pick
[...]
> ;; SRFI-1 accessors like "first"
> ((procedure? n)
> (n sub))
Cool!
> (else (error "pick: Selector not supported.")))))))
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> Then I noticed that it’s really inconvenient to use let bindings inside
> of fields, so I changed the “make-process” macro to allow for
> definitions inside of the fields of a process.
Ok. Even I am a bit lost with all the changes.
> So you can do this now:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> process foo
> inputs
> . "something"
> . samples: "a" "b" "c"
> procedure
> define second-sample
> pick second samples: inputs
> . # { echo {{second-sample}} }
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> Unfortunately, the leading dot sticks out like a wart here. We could
> only drop it if I manage to rewrite the code-snippet value so that it
> really is a procedure that will return itself when applied to zero
> arguments… It might be possible with some tinkering.
Hum? I trust you.
> (Note that you do need the “procedure” field name here; it can be left
> off only when the last value is a code-snippet.)
Ok. It makes sense.
Does this work?
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
process foo
inputs
. "something"
. samples: "a" "b" "c"
# { echo {{(pick second inputs:samples)}} }
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
or # { echo {{(pick second samples: inputs)}} }
Because it is enough to usual needs, I guess.
Cheers,
simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-10 23:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-08 12:39 Preparing for a new release Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-08 20:38 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-08 21:50 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-09 13:00 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-09 23:33 ` zimoun
2020-02-10 1:25 ` Kyle Meyer
2020-02-10 7:34 ` zimoun
2020-02-10 6:31 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-10 7:43 ` zimoun
2020-02-10 21:28 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-10 23:43 ` zimoun [this message]
2020-02-11 9:39 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-11 9:34 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2020-02-11 15:37 ` zimoun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJ3okZ38QaLowjrKB1zg0ONNOPALB1njEwWXbG7RFJK_Gj1hxA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=gwl-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=rekado@elephly.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.