Subject: Re: bug#66148: Fix Guix version number in pulled (=most) manuals

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 17:14:39 +0200

Hello!

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <[email-masked]> skribis:

> On 2023-09-25 16:57, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> plain ‘read’ + ‘match’ instead of regexps.  It should be good enough,
>> and we can make it fail-safe.
>
> You tease.  How?
>
> Fail-safe is key: I'm not a READ guru, I just know it throws on
> unknown #-forms by default, which is unacceptable here.

In practice, the only hash extension we care about is that of (guix
gexp).  If we have it loaded, we can ‘read’ the thing and be done with
it.

Now, I guess I’m starting to understand: we can’t easily have (guix
gexp) loaded in there, right?

In that case, for the purposes of extracting the ‘guix’ version number,
would it be enough to have a simplified version of those extensions (the
‘read-hash-extend’ at the bottom of gexp.scm)?… Hmm, I’m not so sure
anymore…

Ludo’.