Alex Kost (2015-09-10 00:24 +0300) wrote: > Ludovic Courtès (2015-09-09 23:11 +0300) wrote: > >> Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> As a workaround for this issue it was proposed¹ to transform >>> ‘current-build-output-port’ into a procedure (I have checked that it >>> solves the problem). What do you think about it? Perhaps to make sure >>> that the port will be always the same define it like this: >>> >>> (define current-build-output-port (memoize current-error-port)) >>> >>> Is it acceptable? >> >> No, ‘current-build-output-port’ should remain a SRFI-39 parameter so >> that callers can easily rebind it. >> >> However, perhaps the guix.el code could do: >> >> (current-build-output-port (current-error-port)) >> >> at startup; would that be doable? > > (IMO it would be so ugly, that I should say: "no")
After thinking more, I had an idea how to make a not-so-ugly workaround, so "yes", I think I'll do a workaround on elisp side. -- Alex
