Andy Wingo (2016-04-07 13:08 +0300) wrote:
> On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300
>>> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> > + "1lgghck46p33z3hg8dnl76jryig4fh6d8rhzms837zp7x4hyfkv4"))
>>>> > + (patches (map search-patch
>>>> > '("ttfautohint-source-date-epoch.patch")))))
>>>>
>>>> Since it's just a single patch, I don't see a reason to use 'map' here.
>>>
>>> Just that it's less to change if more patches are added later. The
>>> same has been used in other packages.
>>
>> I strongly disagree with this policy. More patches may never be added,
>> but mapping through a list of a single element looks redundant for me.
>
> What if the "patches" field just applied `search-path' to each of the
> items in the list if the path is not absolute? Use
> `absolute-file-name?' to check if this is needed or not.
I think it is a good choice that 'patches' field takes a list of file
names. For example, currently a user can do:
(patches (find-my-patches "package-name"))
With what you suggest, it would not be possible.
--
Alex
