[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#65665: [PATCH] Really get all the implicit inputs.
From: |
Simon Tournier |
Subject: |
bug#65665: [PATCH] Really get all the implicit inputs. |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:22:43 +0200 |
Hi Maxim,
On Thu, 05 Oct 2023 at 22:36, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've reviewed it, and it makes sense to me. I'd like to apply it to the
> core-updates branch. Core team, what say you?
Well, I am not sure to deeply understand some details to get all the
implications here, so I have nothing relevant to say. For instance,
from my understanding, the core change is:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
+ (define (rewrite-argument arg)
+ (match arg
+ ((? package? p)
+ (replace p))
+ ((? gexp-input? gi)
+ (gexp-input (rewrite-argument (gexp-input-thing gi))
+ (gexp-input-output gi)
+ #:native? (gexp-input-native? gi)))
+ ((? gexp? gxp)
+ (make-gexp (map rewrite-argument (gexp-references gxp))
+ (gexp-self-modules gxp)
+ (gexp-self-extensions gxp)
+ (gexp-proc gxp)
+ (%gexp-location gxp)))
+ ((lst ...)
+ (map rewrite-argument lst))
+ (_
+ arg)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
+ (arguments
+ (match p
+ (($ <package> _ _ _ _ args-proc)
+ ;; If we let ARGS-PROC be passed its original package,
+ ;; we somehow end up in an infinite (or maybe just
+ ;; exponential? Never seen it end...) loop. Should
+ ;; probably figure out what's causing that at some
+ ;; point.
+ (let ((args (args-proc this-package)))
+ (if deep?
+ (map rewrite-argument args)
+ args)))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
and I do not feel enough skilled here for getting the implications.
Equally for this kind of changes:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
- (arguments (strip-keyword-arguments private-keywords arguments)))))
+ (arguments
+ (substitute-keyword-arguments
+ (strip-keyword-arguments private-keywords arguments)
+ ((#:guile _ #t) guile))))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Therefore, I trust other opinions or I need some time for diving and
filling some gaps.
Cheers,
simon