On 04.09.2021 12:09, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
> All,
>
> To keep a link with previous ‘define-package’ discussion, I've merged this
> bug with #15284. It was never resolved IMO and things have changed since
> 2013 with the label-less input style.
>
> Maxime Devos 写道：
>> This could be even shorter in the special case that the variable name
>> and package name are the same (modulo types):
>>
>> (define-package "my-favorite-package"
>> (version ...)
>> ...)
>
> (define-anything STRING ...) is just too weird to ack. Are there any package
> names that aren't currently valid symbols? Is there a good reason for them?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> T G-R
To me the most obvious thing to do seems
(define-package foo ...) ;no explicit name needed
to bind the variable 'foo' and use symbol->string for the name of the
package, with the possibility to override the name like
(define-package foo (name "foobar") ...)
which would bind the variable 'foo' to a package named "foobar".
Here's a syntax-case definition:
(define-syntax define-package
(lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
((_ <name>
(<field> <value> ...)
...)
(if (memq 'name (map syntax->datum #'(<field> ...)))
#'(define-public <name>
(package
(<field> <value> ...)
...))
#`(define-public <name>
(package
(name #,(symbol->string (syntax->datum #'<name>)))
(<field> <value> ...)
...)))))))
--
Taylan
