[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#57050] [PATCH v2 04/13] gnu: Add Zuo.

From: Philip McGrath
Subject: [bug#57050] [PATCH v2 04/13] gnu: Add Zuo.
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2022 19:32:34 -0400
User-agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-811-gb808317eab-fm-20220801.001-gb808317e


On Thu, Aug 11, 2022, at 11:34 AM, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 11.08.2022 um 10:00 -0400 schrieb Philip McGrath:
>> I'm planning to respond in the other thread about the possibility of
>> a truly generic macro name, but I hope it doesn't need to become an
>> issue blocking this patch series. For now, I'm not entirely sure what
>> "Racket-agnostic" means; the bottom line for my is I think it would
>> be absurdly awful to have to write, e.g. if cross-compiling using
>> `distro-build` with the top-level Makefile:
>>     ./configure CPPFLAGS="GUIX_RKTIO_BIN_SH=/input/bin/sh
>> GUIX_ZUO_BIN_SH=/input/bin/sh GUIX_CHEZ_BIN_SH=/input/bin/sh"
>> CPPFLAGS_FOR_BUILD="GUIX_RKTIO_BIN_SH=/native-input/bin/sh
>> GUIX_ZUO_BIN_SH=/native-input/bin/sh GUIX_CHEZ_BIN_SH=/native-
>> input/bin/sh"
> GUIX_CHEZ_BIN_SH would semantically cover all four however, no? 
> (Ignoring more generic options for now.)

I don't think so. Zuo and Racket BC have at least as little to do with Chez as 
upstream Chez has to do with rktio.

>> > > +      (home-page "";)
>> > > +      ;; ^ This is downstream of
>> > >,
>> > > +      ;; but it's designed to be a friendly landing place
>> > > +      (synopsis "Tiny Racket for build scripts")
>> > > +      (description "You should use Racket to write scripts.
>> > Sorry, but I prefer Guile.
>> (At the risk of responding seriously to what was probably meant to be
>> a joke:) I've never tried to use Guile on Windows, but, given that
>> the manual chapter is called "POSIX System Calls and Networking",
>> it's not clear to me that Guile provides as portable and powerful
>> "primitives for dealing with files and running processes" as Zuo, let
>> alone Racket.
> At the risk of responding seriously to what was probably meant to be a
> joke, I don't use Winblows 😉️

If you want to be horrified, read 
<>. I'm very glad 
Racket manages all that complexity for me. (And in fairness, even on Unix, 
there are valid paths which can not be represented as Scheme strings.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]