[email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > I actually agree. Well, next round?
If you want. :-) I thought it might be too much to have a second commit that touches all recipes where 'modify-phases' is used, but maybe I'm being too pedantic. > In think Guile 2.1 is standards-compliant in that respect though. A > related problem will be the ‘_’ procedure of (guix ui) that will need > to be renamed (which is annoying at worst, but OK.) ‘delete’ might be > more of a problem. Hm, if Guile 2.1 intends to have a fully hygienic syntax-rules by default, I would expect it to offer a way to enable the alternative behavior for a given syntax-rules usage, because AFAIK it's quite common (if not more common) that unhygienic matching is desired. Otherwise, we could just use slightly different identifiers: phase-delete, phase-replace, phase-add-before, phase-add-after. > Yes, but the package object contains quoted code, so we can’t directly > compare them for equality in this case. Ah, I didn't think of that. Taylan
