Hi,
On jeu., 23 févr. 2023 at 17:27, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hm. That seems sub-optimal; it seems to me that ideally, the
> transformations would be additive, so that users would not need to care
> about the ordering. Or perhaps, alternatively, we could enforce such
> ordering at the implementation level (sorting the transformations in the
> order that is required).
>From my point of view (and what I tried stopping in the middle :-)) is
to report if the transformation makes sense or not. For instance,
with-patch
with-source
makes sense contrary to
with-source
with-patch
and it would already be an improvement to report that the latter
transformation does not make sense instead of silently does nothing or
raises some weird errors.
Well, I am not convinced that enforce the ordering is a good thing
because as Ludo said, some HPC user exploits this control of ordering to
generate complex transformations.
To me, the fix is:
1. document the ordering bits
2. check if the ordering “makes sense“ and raises if not.
Cheers,
simon
