From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58468)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1hXrWJ-0000hw-FU
	for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:17:20 -0400
Message-ID: <3a4d1b40a66dd1304329afdd3d9f87fce78b88a7.camel@gnu.org>
From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 20:19:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87r28airk4.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <87lg2atsxx.fsf@elephly.net>
	<CAJ3okZ0_+pjQ6bt4tpAMpgr2cHf5j-am80UemWKo31MFcPUo-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87mumj0xzq.fsf@elephly.net>
	<CAJ3okZ23JVVJ2sZsGq2r-Ph50aHpcfYkq1y3Fw9WDOnLhdc08A@mail.gmail.com>
	<87pnrez7zg.fsf@elephly.net>
	<CAJ3okZ1e84FT1NF9R2nD5xVxzRjB6UjBWap1KOTZ4KJPZcK0rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87blzll7be.fsf@elephly.net>
	<CAJ3okZ1jGnU02to1ZquLXTaOTa=9xHm7k0R-sKiEC_c2DvGPqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r28airk4.fsf@elephly.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: variable interpolation in code snippets
List-Id: <gwl-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/gwl-devel>,
	<mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:gwl-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-devel>,
	<mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "gwl-devel" <gwl-devel-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org

On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 18:04 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Hi simon,
> 
> > It improves the readibilty.
> > However, does the keyword `list` is mandatory ?
> 
> Unfortunately it is mandatory.  Previously, I tried to give the record
> field a “smart constructor” that takes either one value (a list or a let
> binding resulting in a list) or — for convenience – multiple values that
> are then turned into a list.
> 
> With the Guix-style records this does not seem to be possible.  If we
> want to make this work we’d have to use our own extended records or
> maybe switch to GOOPS.  GOOPS offers virtual slots that can have
> slot-ref and slot-set! procedures, which would handle the conversion
> transparently.  I think this would be a good way forward — and it would
> decouple the GWL from the Guix version in use, because those extended
> record are really made for Guix and may not forever match the needs of
> the GWL.
> 
> > With the renaming scheme that I proposed:
> >  - inputs -becomes-> packages
> >  - data-inputs -becomes-> inputs
> >  - outputs -becomes-> outputs
> 
> I still agree with these changes.  We’d only need to find a way to
> support the old syntax for a while to allow for migrating existing
> workflows (AFAIK that’s really just Roel’s workflows, but it better to
> gradually deprecate the previous syntax).
> 

It's OK for me to deprecate/remove the previous syntax.

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen