GNU bug report logs - #22933
M-x guix-edit fails gracelessly when passed an nonexistent package name

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Mathieu Lirzin <mthl <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 22933 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#22933: M-x guix-edit fails gracelessly when passed an nonexistent package name
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:53:21 +0100

Mathieu Lirzin <mthl <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-03-08 00:03 +0300) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think we should stick to one identifier style, which is to always use
>>>> full words (I’m often tempted to use abbreviations and I force myself
>>>> not to, as silly as I am!)
>>>
>>> Good to know, I always thought that things like "pkg" or "drv" are OK in
>>> a local scope.
>>
>> Well, ahem, ‘drv’ is an exception…
>>
>> Otherwise I think the rationale of the “Naming” section at
>> <http://mumble.net/~campbell/scheme/style.txt> is a good one.
>
> I totally agree with the suggestions made in this section.  However
> these conventions don't talk about "bound variables" which is IMO a
> different context than the global name space.
>
> I used to think that full words everywhere were a good thing, by
> opposition of the unhelpful variables 'i' and 'x'.  Nonetheless, with
> the experience (short I admit) I tend to think that an abbreviation is
> still helpful for bound variables because it helps distinguishing them
> from free variables.  It is even more true when the meaning of this
> abbrevation is made explicit by the doc-string.

Yeah I was thinking along these lines at some point (as is apparent in
older parts of Guix ;-)), but my preference du jour is different.
Anyway, we’ll see next time such an issue comes up!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.