[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The package/inherit trap
From: |
Simon Tournier |
Subject: |
Re: The package/inherit trap |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Mar 2023 18:46:50 +0100 |
Hi Maxim,
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 at 11:43, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> @lisp
>> (use-modules (gnu packages gdb)) ;for 'gdb'
>>
>> (define gdb-sans-guile
>> (package
>> (inherit gdb)
>> (inputs (modify-inputs (package-inputs gdb)
>> (delete "guile")))))
>> @end lisp
>
> Do you mean inconsistent because based on what I wrote it should have
> used "package/inherit gdb ..." instead of (package (inherit gdb) ...) ?
Based on my understanding about what you wrote.
> If so, I agree. It could be modified to use the former and an extra
> explanation offered about why package/inherit is used here when it's to
> be preferred to plain inheritance.
Well, from my point of view, we have a trap because the documentation is
not clear. :-)
Well, I think it is not only by replacing in the example. I think the
manual should provide 2 examples and makes a clear line when one needs
to pick ’inherit’ or when one needs to pick ’package/inherit’.
Somehow, we have a similar issue as we had before with “Snippet vs
Phases“. It would help to have plain words for ’package/inherit’ use
cases; assuming all the other use cases are covered by ’inherit’. ;-)
Cheers,
simon