Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis: > this looks really good, but I do not understand why we need the > additional private variable, for instance %python-cython:
Glad you noticed. :-) > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:47:15AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> -(define-public python-cython >> +(define %python-cython >> (package >> (name "python-cython") >> (version "0.23.4") >> @@ -2946,8 +2946,13 @@ programming language and the extended Cython >> programming language. It makes >> writing C extensions for Python as easy as Python itself.") >> (license asl2.0))) >> >> +(define-public python-cython >> + (package >> + (inherit %python-cython) >> + (properties `((python2-variant . ,(delay python2-cython)))))) >> + >> (define-public python2-cython >> - (package (inherit (package-with-python2 python-cython)) >> + (package (inherit (package-with-python2 %python-cython)) >> (name "python2-cython") >> (inputs > > If python2-cython inherits from (package-with-python2 python-cython), > is not the only difference that it keeps the properties field? And > would this not be harmless, as we are not going to call package-with-python2 > again? Or would this create a circular dependency with (delay python2-cython)? So I thought! In hindsight, I think this is unnecessary. > (In C or Pascal, this would not be a problem I can’t wait to see “Pasix”! :-) Ludo’.
