<apteryx>is it possible to use apply on macros? <apteryx>So to compose macros one is forced to use macros, corrects? <apteryx>there's this in srfi-64: (define (%test-match-any . pred-list) which is what I need, but it's not public <apteryx>instead it is exposed as a macro like: (test-match-any pred ...) <apteryx>I have my preds as a dynamically computed list <apteryx>the part to fix is this line: (test-specifier (apply test-match-all test-specifiers)) <apteryx>I tested this cheat just for fun: (define %test-match-all (@@ (srfi srfi-64) %test-match-all)); works. ***apteryx is now known as Guest14637
***apteryx_ is now known as apteryx
***rekado_ is now known as rekado
<rekado>apteryx: can’t we already restrict the tests to run with “make check TESTS=only-this”? <rekado>rlb: yes, I used SRFI 71 and SRFI 11 before. <sneek>leoprikler, you have 1 message! <sneek>leoprikler, raghavgururajan says: I have remove recursive for tg_owt in v13. :-) <apteryx>rekado: not at the finer grain level of test cases (you can only select individual test files) <apteryx>so if you are interested in a single test case in packages.scm, you can only run 'make check TESTS=tests/packages.scm' (or copy paste stuff at the REPL). <apteryx>(I mean, with the above make check command, *all* the test cases of packages.scm get run, which takes quite some time). <apteryx>rekado: moving conversation to #guix as we're new off topic :-) <Rovanion>How do I join two lists? Just attach the second to the end of the first. ***amiloradovsky1 is now known as amiloradovsky
<rlb>civodul: maybe ok to cherry-pick the symbol hashing fixes to stable-2.2 if it's fairly easy, so they'll be there if we end up making another release? <rlb>e.g. 8b3cad618314f02ad3921fa104f17ca0f721dfcb and perhaps your couple of follow-on commits with tests. <rlb>civodul: oh, and I'm also fine leaving 2.2 alone wrt anything non-trivial if we'd prefer. Obviously more work/risk whenever we try to handle both branches. <civodul>rlb: sure, it doesn't hurt to cherry-pick fixes to stable-2.2 <rlb>OK, thanks -- I might backport some of the changes I just pushed to 3.0 too. And I was goingg under the assumption that the symbol hashing is ok for a Z release under the bugfix category. <rlb>Oh, and I was also trying to figure out when I should post patches to guile-devel. i.e. I had been intending to do that more, but during the push I was reminded that there's a commits list, so maybe that's often sufficient? <rlb>I mean of course I'll still post patches for review when that's appropriate, but perhaps not things like simple doc fixes, etc.