David Thompson <dthomps...@worcester.edu> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> (FWIW I’m not fond of the `(,gcc-toolchain "debug") notation that we
>> also use in packages, but it has the advantage of being concise.)
>
> Do you have plans to introduce a better notation? G-exps?
No concrete plan yet. A remote possibility might be to indeed rely more
on gexps and maybe get rid of input labels, like:
(define foo
(package
;; ...
(inputs (list guile-2.0 gtk+ (gexp-input glib "bin")))))
but this introduces other challenges in particular wrt. package
customizations. So, we’ll see.
However, for new APIs, I find it usually better to use the above gexp
style rather than the current package-input style.
Ludo’.
