On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <[email protected]> writes: > Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300 >> Alex Kost <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] >>> > + "1lgghck46p33z3hg8dnl76jryig4fh6d8rhzms837zp7x4hyfkv4")) >>> > + (patches (map search-patch >>> > '("ttfautohint-source-date-epoch.patch"))))) >>> >>> Since it's just a single patch, I don't see a reason to use 'map' here. >> >> Just that it's less to change if more patches are added later. The >> same has been used in other packages. > > I strongly disagree with this policy. More patches may never be added, > but mapping through a list of a single element looks redundant for me.
What if the "patches" field just applied `search-path' to each of the items in the list if the path is not absolute? Use `absolute-file-name?' to check if this is needed or not. Andy
