[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#63802] [mumi PATCH 0/3] Use consolidated X-Debbugs-Cc header
From: |
Arun Isaac |
Subject: |
[bug#63802] [mumi PATCH 0/3] Use consolidated X-Debbugs-Cc header |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Jul 2023 23:14:15 +0100 |
Hi Maxim,
> nitpick: I guess these should be called 'procedures', which seems to be
> the preferred term in Scheme (ironically enough for a functional
> language? eh!). CC'ing Ludovic in case they have some thoughts on the
> matter, as I think they were the one originally teaching me that.
>
> If that was just me, intuitively I'd use 'procedure' for something
> involving side effects while 'function' as something taking an input and
> always returning the same output, without side effects (pure function),
> but that doesn't seem to be the prevalent style in the Scheme
> community.
Exactly, that was my intuition too. Maybe, we should break with
tradition! :-) In any case, I have changed all instances of "function"
to "procedure".
>> + git-send-email-headers
>> + compose))
>
> I think you've exported 'compose' erroneously here.
Good catch! compose is part of a new "mumi compose" feature I am working
on. I had accidentally committed it. I have removed it from this commit.
Now that you mention it, maybe I should call it compose-email so as to
not conflict with compose from guile core.
>> +(define (git-send-email-headers patch)
>> + "Print send-email headers for PATCH."
>> + (let* (;; Compute headers if configured in git config.
>> + (header-command
>> + (guard (ex (#t #f))
>> + (call-with-input-pipe* (list "git" "config"
>> "sendemail.headerCmd")
>> + get-line)))
>
> Ain't this guard equivalent to '(false-if-exception
> (call-with-input-pipe* ...))' ? I find the later more readable if yes,
Good point! I was not aware of false-if-exception. I have changed to
using it now.
> but: does call-with-input-pipe* raise an exception when git is available
> but 'sendemail.headerCmd' not set, thus exiting with status 1? I wasn't
> able to find its documentation in the Guile Reference manual.
call-with-input-pipe* and call-with-input-pipe are both defined in
mumi/client.scm. They are not part of guile. The only difference between
them is whether they accept the command as a string or as a list of
arguments---thus, they parallel open-pipe and open-pipe*.
> Otherwise you'd get header-command set to the empty string, which
> seems like it'd be a problem...
call-with-input-pipe* does raise an exception when git is available but
sendemail.headerCmd is not set. I checked. So, this is not a problem.
>> + (headers
>> + (if header-command
>> + (call-with-input-pipe (string-append header-command " " patch)
>
> ^ ... here. Also, why the mixed use of
> 'call-with-input-pipe*' and 'call-with-input-pipe'? I'd
> stick with the former.
sendemail.headerCmd is only available to us as a string, and not as a
list of arguments. It is quite non-trivial to correctly split the string
back into a list of arguments. That would require correct handling of
quotes like the shell does. So, we use call-with-input-pipe to handle
this case.
But everywhere else (such as when invoking "git config
sendemail.headerCmd"), we prefer to pass commands as a list of
arguments. So, we need call-with-input-pipe*.
I understand it's a bit confusing to have two very similar
functions. But, the only possible compromise is to use
call-with-input-pipe everywhere. Should I make that compromise? WDYT?
Thanks for the review!
Regards,
Arun