"Thompson, David" <dthomps...@worcester.edu> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Amirouche Boubekki
> <amirou...@hypermove.net> wrote:
>
>> What about dispatch `guix package -i` depending on the argument. In
>> principle there will be no "*.scm$" packages so the above could be
>>
>> guix package -i package.scm
>>
>> The idea behind that is to keep the number of command to minimum. In this
>> case, IMO, it makes sens to merge both logic inside the same UI.
>
> That won't work because it creates ambiguities in the package spec
> syntax. How can one tell if a package spec or a file name was passed
> with 100% accuracy? You can't, and we'd have to use a heuristic that
> would surely fail in some awful way for someone. It's best for this
> to be a separate argument.
>
> - Dave
Sometimes a 99.9% solution is acceptable IMO. Packages named "foo.scm"
should be exceedingly rare in first place, and then if you also have a
file of that name in the current directory...
Another option might be to expect a slash in the string, i.e. forcing
"./" if the file's in the current directory:
guix package -i ./package.scm
Happening to have a package with a slash in its name, ending in .scm,
and coinciding with the relative or absolute path of a file existing on
your filesystem, ought to be implausible.
Just my two cents from glancing over the discussion though. No strong
opinions. Additional flag is fine too by me.
Taylan
