On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 08:10:02PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:33:25AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Ricardo Wurmus <[email protected]> skribis: > > > > > Leo Famulari <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:15PM -0600, Eric Bavier wrote: > > >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:09:09 -0500 > > >>> Leo Famulari <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > I think it would be better for this software synthesizer to be in > > >>> > music.scm. > > >>> > > > >>> > Thoughts? > > >>> > > >>> IIRC, the original thought was that many GNU packages have their own > > >>> modules, so this was done for cursynth as well. > > >> > > >> Okay, sure. > > > > > > I think it would be nice to have cursynth in “music.scm”. > > > > +1 > > > > >> To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind grouping packages > > >> into modules. Is it just for humans or is there some technical reason > > >> for it? > > > > > > It’s mostly for humans AFAIU. Personally, I prefer try to avoid a > > > proliferation of one-off modules; maybe because I don’t like the > > > boilerplate (license header, module definition with imports, adding the > > > module to “gnu-system.am”). > > > > Same here. > > > > More modules also lead to more I/O for the various commands. > > That's a good reason. > > I'll apply the patch if there are no objections.
Pushed as 658212ebf7. > > > > > Ludo’. >
