taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> I actually agree. Well, next round? > > If you want. :-) I thought it might be too much to have a second commit > that touches all recipes where 'modify-phases' is used, but maybe I'm > being too pedantic. Currently ‘modify-phases’ is only used in build systems, so it’s not too late. >> In think Guile 2.1 is standards-compliant in that respect though. A >> related problem will be the ‘_’ procedure of (guix ui) that will need >> to be renamed (which is annoying at worst, but OK.) ‘delete’ might be >> more of a problem. > > Hm, if Guile 2.1 intends to have a fully hygienic syntax-rules by > default, I would expect it to offer a way to enable the alternative > behavior for a given syntax-rules usage, because AFAIK it's quite common > (if not more common) that unhygienic matching is desired. Yeah I have mixed feelings about it. > Otherwise, we could just use slightly different identifiers: > phase-delete, phase-replace, phase-add-before, phase-add-after. This is an example of an undesirable side effect. :-) Ludo’.
