From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Craven Subject: Re: Feedback, ideas, discussion: tracking patches, discussions, bugs. Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 21:53:07 +0200 Message-ID: References: <57B2BEDA.2020202@goebel-consult.de> <874m6kbyg4.fsf@gmail.com> <57B5A049.6070206@goebel-consult.de> <87wpiwruyd.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <87inuf27h7.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20160902002755.GA30382@jocasta.intra> <87vayfm821.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <8737liam03.fsf@gmail.com> <87shtiogoq.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <878tvafu6g.fsf@gmail.com> <20160903164441.GA1821@thebird.nl> <9a4b1226-6899-6db7-c3c4-4ca11c2f180b@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46386) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgH06-0006lA-TY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:53:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgH02-0004CD-NP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:53:13 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]:35623) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgH01-0004C9-GF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:53:10 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j12so88001969ywb.2 for ; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 12:53:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9a4b1226-6899-6db7-c3c4-4ca11c2f180b@openmailbox.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Brendan Tildesley Cc: guix-devel > I was going to post a patch over several files removing redundant > mkdir-p expressions, > but decided against it! If you run something like `ack '\(install-file' > -B 7| ack 'mkdir-p' -A 7' > You can see them, since install-file already contains a mkdir-p. I think this is going a little off-topic. > Also It seems like > (let ((out (assoc-ref outputs "out")))...) is set in almost every > package definition, > as if having some symbol for the outputs already might be more efficient?? If we start special-casing stuff, in no time we'll have a dozen special cases. I think that that makes package definitions harder to read. As it is currently there are a couple of primitives that do a good job for defining packages without obfuscating stuff. I think Ricardo already replied to this on IRC ;)