<paroneayea>rekado: got a multipart message writer working now, too :) <reepca>Is it possible to have syntax-rules transform a form into nothing, not even '()? So for example (begin (display "hi") (nothing-inator foo bar baz)) => (begin (display "hi"))? <reepca>I've got a recursive macro whose base case I would like to make be having zero parameters rather than one. <reepca>(would make it a lot easier on macros that in turn use that macro) ***ertesx is now known as ertes
<amz3>re guile-git, the buggy checkout commit was all about typos <amz3>OrangeShark: today I am working on guile-git <amz3>I mean I fixed the 'checkout' bindings <amz3>now you can 'checkout' a branch based on its name <amz3>I'd like to synchronize with m-o who is working on guix integration <amz3>OrangeShark: it was is master, but for some reason a few typos slipped into master <amz3>m-o: so what do you need from guile-git to get your work on guix going? <amz3>right now the 'checkout' code is in a branch <amz3>OrangeShark: I think I did not told you that m-o has commit access to the repository <m-o>ok, for now the (guix git) binding is operational (is used 'reset hard' instead of 'checkout') <m-o>the only thing missing is the right integration with guix pull <amz3>m-o: are you working on 'guix pull'? <m-o>that's why (guix git) was reverted on guix master <m-o>to summarize (guix build pull) builds all .scm files, Ludo has added a snippet to remove files depending of guile-ssh if guile-ssh is not present <m-o>but this does not work <m-o>so we need first to fix this and then exclude all the files depending of guile-git if guile-git is missing (for now only (guix git)) <m-o>that solved, my patch can be un-reverted <m-o>as I'll be afk for 1 week, feel free to solve this problem :) <amz3>to be honest, I am not very confortable contributing to guix itself <m-o>no problem :) anyway, this problem is quite tricky I'll need Ludo assistance <amz3>m-o: let me know if you need something specific in guile-git that you can't or don't want to do <m-o>amz3: ok thanks, for now it's all good but it may happend later, when improving (guix git) ! <amz3>so maybe we should do release merge feature/checkout branch and do a release <amz3>I am not confortable doing the release. <amz3>it's quite a ceremony that I am not used to <civodul>amz3: out of curiosity, you're not comfortable contributing to Guix because of the conventions, reviews, etc.? <civodul>we're aware that it's not as simple as it could be, but it's always good to know how other hackers feel about it! <OrangeShark>civodul: oh neat, distcheck even runs the tests and makes sure everything works. <amz3>civodul: I am not confortable because it's a big project <amz3>civodul: and the gnu commit message style that I don't know <amz3>civodul: actually reviews is plus <amz3>civodul: actually reviews is a plus <OrangeShark>amz3: I feel similar when trying to contribute to large projects. Need to try to overcome it, it isn't so bad :) <amz3>also, i have the feeling that I make everybody loose time, as I am not sure I want to commit to the project <amz3>basically I am not sure I want to be guix contributor, so I don't want to waste the time of the knowledgeable to teach me... <civodul>amz3: i think it's ok to ask for guidance when joining a project; this is not "waste of time" for the established contributors <paroneayea>one interesting side effect of this rewriting optimization <paroneayea>is that if you were doing a multi-value return in (bar), technically you would think only one value would be returned from the let <nalaginrut>paroneayea: hmm, I think this should be a problem, but Guile never check the multi return and only bind the first value <paroneayea>nalaginrut: I guess would only be a problem if you did something like a call-with-values outside of the let expecting a single value <nalaginrut>paroneayea: but let-values won't do that inline optimizing <paroneayea>it's something I just realized this morning while at the REPL :) <nalaginrut>Guile is not strict to rnrs, sometimes I wonder how it's lucky enough to work successfully ;-P <paroneayea>don't confuse optimal standards conformance with optimally correct behavior :) <spk121>Cool. I'm writing to the systemd journal from Guile. :-)