On 2025-04-24 19:16, ngra...@ngraves.fr wrote: > On 2025-04-15 19:01, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Instead of procedure properties (which are a hack, really), you could >> add one or two fields to <build-system> and be done with that. > > That is true, although I was worried about breaking the API. I'll give > that a try, migrating my current approach for this one.
After some more thought, the issue with this one is that if we set those fields, a user might expect that changing them (changing a modules or imported-modules field on the <build-system>) will change the ones used for the build-system (intuitively, that makes sense). We should either add a warning that it has no effect on the build procedures themselves, or handle them properly -- which means making the future lower a thunk returning the current lower. I'm going to try the second solution, although it's almost as far-fetched as using procedure properties IMHO. -- Best regards, Nicolas Graves
