Subject: [bug#62754] [PATCH v2] doc: Use G-Expressions for package definition example.

From: Nicolas Goaziou <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 10:21:50 +0200

Hello,

Bruno Victal <[email-masked]> writes:

> +     (list
> +      #:phases
> +      #~(modify-phases %standard-phases
> +          (delete 'configure)
> +          (add-before 'build 'set-prefix-in-makefile
> +            (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
> +              ;; Modify the makefile so that its
> +              ;; 'PREFIX' variable points to #$output and
> +              ;; 'XMLLINT' points to the correct path.
> +              (substitute* "Makefile"
> +                (("PREFIX =.*")
> +                 (string-append "PREFIX = " #$output "\n"))
> +                (("XMLLINT =.*")
> +                 (string-append "XMLLINT = "
> +                                (search-input-file inputs "/bin/xmllint")
> +                                "\n"))))))))))
>  @end lisp
>  
>  The new phase that is inserted is written as an anonymous procedure,
> -introduced with @code{lambda*}; it honors the @code{outputs} parameter
> -we have seen before.  @xref{Build Utilities}, for more about the helpers
> -used by this phase, and for more examples of @code{modify-phases}.
> +introduced with @code{lambda*}.  @xref{Build Utilities}, for more about
> +the helpers used by this phase, and for more examples of
> +@code{modify-phases}.

I think it still makes sense to refer to `inputs'; it could be
unsettling otherwise. Maybe something along those lines:

    ... introduced with @code{lambda*}; it looks for the @file{xmllint}
    executable in a @file{"/bin"} directory among package's inputs
    (@pxref{package Reference}).  It also honors the @code{outputs}
    parameter we have seen before@xref{Build Utilities}, for more...

WDYT?

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou