On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:33:25AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > 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.
That's a good reason. I'll apply the patch if there are no objections. > > Ludo’.
