Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi, > > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: [...] >> Ah! Thanks for pointing my silly mistake. Then the argument would >> become... if it's good for define-configuration, it should have been >> good for define-record-type* the same (why the discrepancy?). > > ‘define-record-type*’ is generic; there’s no reason for it to add a > ‘location’ field. > >> After your new documentation in place to guide users to DTRT with >> regards to matching records, if you think %location should be the first >> field, then we should make it so in both instances, perhaps? > > ‘%location’ only appears in ‘define-configuration’; what did you mean by > “both instances”? Hmm, that's right. Nevermind, I thought the later had a %location "special" field too. >> Oops! Another point to add to our future coding style guidelines :-). > > In the end, I guess the lesson is that, indeed, not all the design > choices and rationales are properly documented. That’ll always be the > case to a large extent though, so changes “close to the core” require > more careful review and discussion to fully understand the implications > of the change—it might look innocuous but have broader implications than > expected. Agreed. I'll try to make better use of the etc/teams.scm script in the future to ping the right people for such changes. -- Thanks, Maxim
