Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> skribis: > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:15PM -0600, Eric Bavier wrote: >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:09:09 -0500 >>> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote: >>> >>> > I think it would be better for this software synthesizer to be in >>> > music.scm. >>> > >>> > Thoughts? >>> >>> IIRC, the original thought was that many GNU packages have their own >>> modules, so this was done for cursynth as well. >> >> Okay, sure. > > I think it would be nice to have cursynth in “music.scm”.
+1 >> To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind grouping packages >> into modules. Is it just for humans or is there some technical reason >> for it? > > It’s mostly for humans AFAIU. Personally, I prefer try to avoid a > proliferation of one-off modules; maybe because I don’t like the > boilerplate (license header, module definition with imports, adding the > module to “gnu-system.am”). Same here. More modules also lead to more I/O for the various commands. Ludo’.
