Thanks for the detailed response c:
The blocker is that AFAIK we can't tell if a record-field was defined as
thunk-ed or delay-ed outside of the expansion of the `define-record-type*'
form that defines it, nor programatically access it's getter/setter (the pair
`(guix records)` defines, which acco
> I don't believe that the syntax achieves its goals without this
> mechanism
I just realized my example doesn't actually include a use of recursive
cut after all (whoops), and finding only 2 uses in my code-base, am open to
considering SRFI-26 sufficient. This helps somewhat, but was not the bloc
> That looks like a nice syntax indeed. Is the code behind it small
> enough to include it in (guix records)?
Small enough? Yes (<100 LOC, inc. a handful of comments and tests).
Suitable? No, I introduced it as "moderately-cursed" for a reason >u<
But I appreciate the sentiment c:
1.) It leaks
ch before exploring larger systems built on top of it).
Anyway, I like your take, just fount it today and got to thinking-- thanks for
putting it out there~
1: From:
https://github.com/AutumnalAntlers/old-guix-config/blob/main/modules/antlers/systems/transformations/yubi.scm
2: Like `cut`, but deeper: see the `<>` symbol nested deep within in the
`users` clause of the Yubi example.
to study your macro to understand how you wrote
> it. I've only written a handful of macro in my life, and came to lisp
> via common lisp, from which I've learned quite a lot apprently bad
> habits, so I'm lost in scheme-land.
>
> I'll study your system, thant _yo
Anecdotally, my personal configurations are built out of composable
operating-system transformers that add packages, services, etc. through
trees of inherited records.
That's fairly straightforward for eg. adding packages, but becomes more
complicated when you consider modifying service configurat
