Hi Attila, Attila Lendvai <att...@lendvai.name> writes:
[...] >> prepare a patch for the other things mentionned here (an exported >> symbol). Thanks! > i started implementing your suggestions, including the replacement of > the scattered usage of (eq? 'unset ...) pattern. what i found is that > the code is not very readable using MAYBE-VALUE-SET?, or at least not > for me. > > first, it negates the boolean logic everywhere in the current code > (i.e. larger diff, and/or the use of (if (not ...) a b)). > > and an example wrt readability: > > (if (maybe-value-set? field-default) > field-default > (configuration-missing-default-value ...) > > a value is never set, only places can be set to some value. It's not clear to me why you think the above is less readable; in the code I had to touch, the maybe-value-set? was more natural, as the cases I dealt with often tested for (not (eq? 'unset ...)), so reversing the logic allowed getting rid of the negation. See https://issues.guix.gnu.org/57168#13 for example. > > would you be fine if we renamed MAYBE-VALUE-SET? to UNSET-VALUE? unset-value? sounds like an action; so I'd name it 'maybe-value-unset?'; but as I wrote above I don't really see the benefit/like the idea. Thanks for working on it! Maxim
