Hi, On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 18:02, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > ison <i...@airmail.cc> skribis: > >> Under "6.7 Declaring Channel Dependencies" the examples show names being >> quoted, such as (name 'some-collection) however this causes guix pull to >> fail. I don't remember the exact error but it was failing the "match" >> statement under "resolve-dependencies" in "guix/channels.scm". >> >> (name "some-collection") also fails. >> (name some-collection) succeeds, without any quoting. > > Oops you’re right; I’ll push a fix to the manual shortly.
Indeed, it can be confusing to have: (name some-collection) where elsewhere it is quoted. Related to below, since it is data, does you make sense to have (name “some-collection”) for .guix-channel and a ’string->symbol’ somewhere. >> I'm not sure if it's the manual which needs fixing or the code, but >> specifying the name without quoting would be inconsistent with how >> channel names are declared in ~/.config/guix/channels.scm. > > It’s necessarily different because ‘.guix-channel’ is data whereas > ‘channels.scm’ is code. Right, option ’--channels/-C’ of “guix pull” says: «file must contain Scheme code» then section “Specifying Additional Channels” says «Note that the snippet above is (as always!) Scheme code». However, what is maybe less clear is that ’.guix-channel’ is data. Even if it is often said «meta-data file .guix-channel». Maybe the “meta” is confusing. Why simply not say «data file». Or «meta-data file .guix-channel (which is not code)». Well, it is confusing because code is data. :-) And all is using parenthesis. And the ’.guix-channel’ looks very similar as channels.scm. Cheers, simon