Re: Some macros to make package definitions prettier

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> I actually agree.  Well, next round?

If you want. :-) I thought it might be too much to have a second commit
that touches all recipes where 'modify-phases' is used, but maybe I'm
being too pedantic.

> In think Guile 2.1 is standards-compliant in that respect though.  A
> related problem will be the ‘_’ procedure of (guix ui) that will need
> to be renamed (which is annoying at worst, but OK.)  ‘delete’ might be
> more of a problem.

Hm, if Guile 2.1 intends to have a fully hygienic syntax-rules by
default, I would expect it to offer a way to enable the alternative
behavior for a given syntax-rules usage, because AFAIK it's quite common
(if not more common) that unhygienic matching is desired.

Otherwise, we could just use slightly different identifiers:
phase-delete, phase-replace, phase-add-before, phase-add-after.

> Yes, but the package object contains quoted code, so we can’t directly
> compare them for equality in this case.

Ah, I didn't think of that.

Taylan