Hello!
Sorry for the long delay.
Huang Ying <huang.ying.cari...@gmail.com> skribis:
> * gnu/services/dict.scm (<dicod-configuration>): Rename databases
> to items to reflect more general configuration.
> (<dicod-handler>): Add new record type to describe handler (module).
> (<dicod-database>): Add more fields.
> (dicod-configuration-file): Support convert more configuration items
> to config file.
Looks like a nice addition!
> (dico dicod-configuration-dico (default dico))
> (interfaces dicod-configuration-interfaces ;list of strings
> (default '("localhost")))
> - (databases dicod-configuration-databases
> - ;; list of <dicod-database>
> + (items dicod-configuration-items
> + ;; list of <dictod-handler> or <dicod-database>
> (default (list %dicod-database:gcide))))
“Items” sounds very generic. Would it make sense to instead keep
separate ‘databases’ and ‘handlers’ fields?
> +(define-record-type* <dicod-handler>
> + dicod-handler make-dicod-handler
> + dicod-handler?
> + (name dicod-handler-name)
> + (module dicod-handler-module (default #f))
> + (options dicod-handler-options (default '())))
In fact I would suggest “module” instead of “handler”, to stick to the
name that Dico uses already, IIUC. WDYT?
One last thing: could you update guix.texi to mention this? Adding an
example of how to use it would be ideal.
Thank you!
Ludo’.
PS: In the future you can send to guix-patc...@gnu.org, which goes to
<https://bugs.gnu.org/guix-patches> where it’s hopefully less likely
to fall through the cracks. ;-)
