Re: Divvying up service definitions

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Bruno,

Bruno Victal <mirai@makinata.eu> writes:

> Hi Efraim,
>
> On 2023-11-09 07:15, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>> I assume the define-maybe's aren't public, so I'd guess that shouldn't
>> cause a problem as long as they aren't exported.
>
> They're not public but they override definitions within the same file
> if more than one (define-maybe foo) is present (e.g. when (prefix bar-)
> is used)
>
>> Or moving the define-maybes to the top of the file and reusing them
>> between services. Is that a possibility?
>
> Due to their non-hygienic nature and the (prefix foo-) argument this
> can't work. IMO we should look into replacing this define-maybe business
> with something like SRFI-189 (by integrating it into Guile).

Haven't given much thought to the idea, but I've recently tried my hand
at adding new SRFIs to Guile, and developed some tooling such as a
'snarfi' script to aid with converting its HTML spec to Texinfo doc;
you'll find the result at:
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2023-12/msg00026.html>
and the script at
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2023-12/msg00019.html>.

I hope these are useful in your (or someone's) quest to add SRFI 189 or
others.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim