[bug#53878] [PATCH v3 09/15] gnu: Add racket-vm-cgc.

[Liliana Marie Prikler]

Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 09:09 -0500 schrieb Philip McGrath:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 4:03:26 AM EST Liliana Marie Prikler
> wrote:
> > So here's my suggestion:
> > 
> > Inside chez-and-racket-bootstrap, define (make-<package>) functions
> > for
> > the following:
> > - chez-bootstrap-bootfiles, chez-for-racket-bootstrap-bootfiles:
> >   Taking version and origin.
> > - racket-vm-cgc: Taking version and origin.
> > - racket-vm-bc: Taking racket-vm-cgc.
> > - racket-vm-cs: Taking racket-vm-bc.
> > 
> > Inside chez, define chez-scheme, as well as non-bootstrapped
> > versions of stex et al.  Also define make-chez-scheme-for-racket,
> > taking version and origin as parameter.  Finally, define chez-
> > scheme-for-system, which uses (resolve-interface '(gnu packages
> > racket)) to get racket's version and
> > origin.
> > 
> > Inside racket, define %racket-version, %racket-origin, racket-
> > minimal
> > and racket.  It'd also be good if you made local definitions
> > (define racket-vm-cgc (make-racket-vm-cgc %racket-version %racket-
> > origin))
> > (define racket-vm-bc (make-racket-vm-bc racket-vm-cgc))
> > ...
> > in this file.
> 
> My understanding—which is not very good!—is that this would have the
> same problem we do currently. It would be analogous to my example
> from <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53878#93>:
Well, for one this claim is both verifiable and falsifiable by way of
implementation.  For another, I don't really see the issue however. 
Since those bindings would be local to racket.scm and not used anywhere
else, I don't think there is a cycle to be found anywhere.

> 
> > But  Ludo’'s examples show that's wrong: those uses of `chez
> > scheme` are in what the "expansion contexts" model would call
> > "expression contexts".
> > 
> > Instead, I think rule № 2 prohibits any reference to a variable
> > imported from another (gnu packages ...) module that will be
> > evaluated when the (gnu packages ...) modules are—visited?
> > instantiated? [2][3]—IDK when exactly, but, for practical purposes,
> > any variable reference that is not underneath a lambda abstraction.
> > 
> > If that's right, IIUC, it would mean that:
> > 
> >     (define chez-scheme-for-racket
> >       (make-chez-scheme-for-racket ...))
> > 
> > would also be prohibited.
> > 
> > On the other hand, uses of `(racket-vm-for-system)` and `(chez-
> > scheme-for-system)` in an `imports` field should still be fine,
> > thanks to the implicit thunks. 
> The reference to `make-chez-scheme-for-racket` or `make-racket-vm-cs`
> or any such procedure defined in "chez-and-racket-bootstrap.scm"
> would be evaluated when "racket.scm" is instantiated—or whenever
> precisely it is that causes the  problem.
I don't think that'd be a problem since make-chez-scheme-for-racket is
itself a function.  If it still is, one pair of brackets makes it not
so.  This is a well-explored technique of resolving chains, used for
example in our build system code.  chez-and-racket-bootstrap.scm should
imo not be imported anywhere but chez.scm and racket.scm, so it by
itself can not form a cycle.  Only chez.scm and racket.scm can, but
there are ways of making those well-formed.

See (standard-packages) in guix/build-system/gnu.scm pointing to (gnu
packages commencement) or (default-python) in guix/build-
system/python.scm for pointers.

Cheers