Hi Guix,
I see search-input-file and search-input-directory used to specify file paths of
input packages, like this:
(search-input-file inputs "bin/foo")
>From my observation, this can also be rewritten as:
(string-append #$(this-package-input "package-foo") "/bin/foo")
#$(file-append (this-package-input "package-foo") "/bin/foo")
While the search-input-file may look more elegant, it can sometimes be harder
for someone to review and understand its meaning, as it’s not clear which
package provides "bin/foo" at first glance.
This issue becomes especially serious when there are a large number of inputs or
when it is difficult to guess the package from the path.
Without the context of what package the file comes in, sometimes it can be hard
to understand what the file means or what it aims to do.
As in this example, if it is easy to predict that package-foo contains
"/bin/foo", then it's not much of a problem. However, even in this case, I feel
it is easier to understand what is happening if you specify the package name.
Also, it would be more convenient if we had a procedure similar to file-append,
like this:
#$(input-file-append "package-foo" "/bin/foo")
The dynamic nature of search-input-file can be useful in some cases, but in
other cases I think the code will be easier to understand if we avoid
unnecessary ambiguity.
I may be missing something, and would love to hear your thoughts.
