Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-21 23:27 +0400) wrote: > >> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Courtès (2014-09-20 18:11 +0400) wrote:
[...] >> I was thinking about things generic enough to be in (guix profiles), >> things that ‘guix package’ or guix-web could use. >> >> That said, it’s also fine do to things incrementally: write things >> specifically for guix.el’s need, and generalize them later when we have >> a clearer understanding of the situation. I just thought it’s worth >> keeping in mind. > > Thanks, I keep it in mind. Such incremental approach is the only way I > can write code. I'm not able to construct a proper thing from the very > beginning: I always make big changes when something new is added and I > notice that a new wave of generalization is required. Understandably, that’s pretty much the same for me. [...] >>> To get information about packages/outputs, different “search-types” are >>> used (like ‘name’, ‘all-available’, ‘installed’). These “search-types + >>> search-vals” are transformed into a list of package/output patterns. >>> >>> Package patterns are: >>> >>> - package record; >>> - list of name, version; >>> - list of name, version, manifest entries; >>> - list of name, version, manifest entries, packages. >> >> Oh, OK. Do remove any ambiguity, an option would be to call them >> “matches”, “search results”, “descriptors”, or “specifications”, >> perhaps. WDYT? >> >> (Maybe this is just bikeshedding, so your call.) > > I leave a “pattern” name for now. OK. >>> Output patterns are: >>> >>> - package record; >>> - list of package record, output; >>> - manifest entry record; >>> - list of manifest entry record, packages; >>> - list of name, version, output. >>> >>> Then these patterns are transformed into entries (alists with >>> parameters/values) using “pattern->entries” functions created by >>> ‘package-pattern-transformer’ and ‘output-pattern-transformer’. >> >> What about s/entries/sexps/? That would make it clearer that the intent >> is to serialize things, not to manipulate them internally. > > Yes, it is better, thanks. I settled to “sexp” for this thing. OK. > Thanks for all your recommendations, I tried to follow them. > I'm attaching the improved patch. Is it good enough now? Yes, please push. Thanks for taking the time! Ludo’.
