Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-12 Thread Efraim Flashner
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:34:15PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi! > > Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > > > (arguments > > (list > > #:phases > > '(modify-phases %standard-phases > > (add-after 'unpack 'i-dont-care > > (lambda _ > > (substitute* "this-file" > >

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-12 Thread Efraim Flashner
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 05:50:31PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Hi Guix, > > does this pattern look familiar to you? > > (arguments > (list > #:phases > '(modify-phases %standard-phases > (add-after 'unpack 'i-dont-care > (lambda _ > (substitute* "this-file

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-08 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > (arguments > (list > #:phases > '(modify-phases %standard-phases > (add-after 'unpack 'i-dont-care > (lambda _ > (substitute* "this-file" > (("^# some unique string, oh, careful! gotta \\(escape\\) > this\\." m) >

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-06 Thread Liliana Marie Prikler
Hi Ricardo, Am Donnerstag, dem 06.01.2022 um 08:12 +0100 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: > So lets take a step back and look at the location and shape of the > bikeshed rather than its color.  Do we agree that it would be lovely > to have a less flexible but declarative pattern to describe changes > to fi

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-05 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Liliana Marie Prikler writes: > Am Donnerstag, dem 06.01.2022 um 02:20 +0100 schrieb Jelle Licht: >> > >> > >> > > Here’s a colour sample for the new bikeshed: >> > > >> > >   (arguments >> > >     (list >> > >   #:patches >> > >   #~(patch "the-file" >> > > ((line 10) >> >

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-05 Thread Liliana Marie Prikler
Hi, Am Donnerstag, dem 06.01.2022 um 02:20 +0100 schrieb Jelle Licht: > > > > > > > Here’s a colour sample for the new bikeshed: > > > > > >   (arguments > > >     (list > > >   #:patches > > >   #~(patch "the-file" > > > ((line 10) > > >   (+ "I ONLY WANTED TO ADD THIS

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-05 Thread Jelle Licht
Liliana Marie Prikler writes: > Hi Ricardo, > > Am Dienstag, dem 04.01.2022 um 17:50 +0100 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: >> Hi Guix, >> >> does this pattern look familiar to you? >> >>   (arguments >>     (list >>     #:phases >>     '(modify-phases %standard-phases >>   (add-after 'unpack 'i-don

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-05 Thread Liliana Marie Prikler
Hi Ricardo, Am Dienstag, dem 04.01.2022 um 17:50 +0100 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: > Hi Guix, > > does this pattern look familiar to you? > >   (arguments >     (list >     #:phases >     '(modify-phases %standard-phases >   (add-after 'unpack 'i-dont-care >     (lambda _ >   (substi

Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-05 Thread Attila Lendvai
i may be lacking the necessary bird's eye view here... but why not just use good old copy-pasted diff for this? introducing extra complexity in the form of a new DSL has all kinds of costs that people usually ignore (*), and it's not clear to me how those costs would pay off compared to just co

RFC: new syntax for inline patches

2022-01-04 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Hi Guix, does this pattern look familiar to you? (arguments (list #:phases '(modify-phases %standard-phases (add-after 'unpack 'i-dont-care (lambda _ (substitute* "this-file" (("^# some unique string, oh, careful! gotta \\(escape\\) this\\." m)