Re: #:modules and #:imported-modules, and more

[Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1853 bytes --]

On 2024-01-09 23:49:33 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> skribis:
>
> >   As seen in the example above, currently there is a need to manually
> >   merge the list of additional modules with the original one.  Failing
> >   to use the correct base can lead to issues (like crash in netsurf).
> >
> >   I would like to propose adding two new fields into the build system,
> >   `#:extra-modules' and `#:extra-imported-modules'.  Those would be
> >   automatically appended to the `#:modules' and `#:imported-modules',
> >   removing the need to merge the lists in the package definition.
> >   Therefore the example above would turn into:
>
> As a rule of thumb, I personally always avoid the #:extra-things
> pattern, instead letting users pass #:things in their entirety and
> documenting the default value.
>
> I believe (1) this is clearer (when I see “extra”, I’m always like “extra
> compared to what?”), and (2) it gives more control over the things in
> question (since one can also remove stuff from the default value).

Well you could still remove the default stuff, since the "non-extra" would not
be going anywhere.

>
> So yes, that’s a bit more boilerplate when all you want is import one
> additional module, but I think it’s overall a better interface than
> #:extra.
>
> I hope this makes sense!

I see your point.  Not sure I fully agree, but do understand what you mean and
will not push on it further.

However even in that light, I still consider the 3 and 4 to be worth
considering.  Aaand even without 3, at least doing 4 in some shape or form would
be in my opinion useful.  Current situation is bit... copy&pasty.

Tomas

--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]