Re: Naming scheme for Python packages

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:03:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:
>> separate ‘package-with-name-prefix’ procedure, such that we would do:
>>   (define package-with-python-2
>>      (compose (cut package-with-name-prefix <> "python2-")
>>               (cut package-with-explicit-python <> python-2)))
>> WDYT?
>
> I think one function is enough; there is not much benefit in striving
> for maximal generality here, since these two operations should always
> be linked in our context.

Yeah, right.

>> (I would use an internal ‘define’ like this, rather than ‘let’, to
>> introduce the ‘rewrite’ procedure; that doesn’t change the semantics,
>> but I find it easier to read.)
>
> Ah, but that is less functional, no? ;-)

No; internal ‘define’ is just syntactic sugar equivalent to ‘letrec*’.

> Thanks for the other suggestions, which look quite interesting. The current
> solution looks easier to a Scheme neophyte like me, and as there is no major
> objection, I am going to push the patch as it is.
>
> This will allow us to go forward with the other problems in the python build
> system, and hopefully package a few more modules!

Excellent, thanks!

Ludo’.