Re: [PATCH] Add scheme-bytestructures

[Ludovic Courtès]

Amirouche Boubekki <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Hi Amirouche,
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>> >> +            (scm-files (string-split
>> "bytestructures/guile/explicit-endianness.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/numeric-metadata.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/ffi.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/vector.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/union.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/numeric-all.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/utils.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/pointer.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/base.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/numeric.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/struct.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile/bitfields.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/r6/bytevectors.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/base.syntactic.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/explicit-endianness.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/vector.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/union.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/utils.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/base.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/numeric.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/struct.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/body/bitfields.scm
>> >> +bytestructures/guile.scm"
>>
>> Please let’s not list all the files.  :-)  Could it instead use
>> something like (find-files "bytestructures" "\\.scm$")?
>>
>
> The above is a subset of all files. Do you prefer to use `find-files` and
> exclude some files?

Whichever is the most concise and most maintainable approach (I suspect
it’s ‘find-files’ + exclude specific files.)

Ludo’.