Re: Some macros to make package definitions prettier

[Ludovic Courtès]

address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:

> 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.

Currently ‘modify-phases’ is only used in build systems, so it’s not too
late.

>> 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.

Yeah I have mixed feelings about it.

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

This is an example of an undesirable side effect.  :-)

Ludo’.