[bug#63985] [PATCH RFC 0/5] Generic INI serializer & SRFI-171 for define-configuration

[Bruno Victal]

Hi Maxim,

On 2023-10-02 20:12, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Could you offer some of your perspective as to why you preferred that
> approach compared to generating multiple, tailored for use, serializers,
> possibly created via a procedure?  Was there a problem with doing so, or
> what is less readable, etc.?

Right, as already pointed out by Liliana in [1]. As for the perspective I'm
afraid the reason is a rather unexciting one: I completely overlooked that
it was another¹ approach that could have been done instead! (and a much simpler
one at that)

I'm dropping this one as well since it's clear now that there's a cleaner
approach for passing these kinds of additional data.


[1]: Message-ID: <6445e508cbc8a9f92d3a54263193936d168cd7cf.camel@gmail.com>
     Link: 
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2023-09/msg01205.html>

¹PS: Example attached for any future readers interested in the topic.

-- 
Furthermore, I consider that nonfree software must be eradicated.

Cheers,
Bruno.

options-as-procedure-call-sample.scm
Description: Text Data