Re: Composing service definitions (and maybe fmt)

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Christopher Allan Webber <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Though I think skribe-style string quasiquoting is not hard for a
>> schemer to learn.  I picked it up almost immediately.  And it's a lot
>> cleaner than the jinja2 style string templating I've grown accustomed to
>> from python web/deployment land.
>
> I think I didn’t express myself clearly: I’m in favour of skribe-style
> string quasiquoting.  The “Schemey way of expressing” things like udev
> rules that “I would not want to have to learn” was referring to using
> some sort of DSL rather than quasiquoting.

Oh okay.  Well I'm convinced that string-quasiquoting is the best away
to go for now anyway.

> But I’m still not clear on what exactly this means.  For udev rules, for
> example [...]

I'm not sure either so I'm just going to say: it's probably
overcomplexifying things.  String quasiquoting will simplify things
quite a bit enough.  Plus, if we need to worry about "escaping"
variables, it'll be easy enough to have scheme procedures which do the
appropriate escaping which can be integrated into the scheme quasiquote
templates.  I think that'll solve 95% (to make an arbitrary
guess-number) of our needs without getting too complex.

So the question is, how should skribe-style string quasiquoting be
introduced?  And is anyone interested in working on it, or should I do
it?

Ludo, you've actually done quite a bit of skribe-style-stuff work! :)
Do you think this is a good idea?  And what would be the right approach?
Depending on guile-reader may be a bit heavy for Guix (?), though maybe
writing a reader macro to do string quasiquoting will not be hard anyway.

 - Chris