Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes: > Hi ng0, > > On Sun, 5 Mar 2017 14:50:26 +0000 > ng0 <contact....@cryptolab.net> wrote: > >> What I take from the discussion is, all is good to go except for >> subsystems. I'm okay with reviewing subsystems as an individual patch >> later on. For me this works. Push the 3 patches, and send the subsystems >> one later as a new discussion-bug. > > The 3 were pushed to master. > > Patch 4 not yet. So let's discuss. > > I have no preference for pairs or lists - it's just that the documentation > should say what it actually expects - because the user has to write the form > differently: > > Pair: '(a . b) > > List: '(a b) > > Those are not compatible with each other. > > (I think as the patch is written now it expects lists) > > And I'm against calling pairs "two-element tuple"s. It reminds me of these > math joke equations which write the value 2 in a really complicated way (but > correctly) :) > > And lists are definitely not two-element tuples. That would be seriously > confusing. > > What do you think?
Hi Danny, I forgot to thank you for this explanation of pairs and lists. I took it into account here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2017-03/msg00610.html. Clément
