On 08-08-2022 15:54, Christopher Rodriguez wrote: >> Maxime Devos writes: >> Copyright and license headers are missing. Also, usually we don't do >> per-package modules but rather thematic modules, though that's not a hard >> rule especially if there are technical problems with that. > Ah, right, I forgot about those. Not used to creating new files. Will be > in the patch I'm sending shortly. > > As for the per-package rule, this will not be the only package for this > file. Aside from the 2 user-facing packages and 3 bootstrap packages in > this series, I'm hoping to package a further (at least) 3 packages—a > standard library, a DSL, and a primer (info). > > I'm also hoping to package an emacs mode, a few fonts, and an update to > a few packages to add BQN support. But those have their own files, and > won't be included here. > > Is that enough of a justification for a new file, or should I look to > add this to another? I/suppose/ apl.scm would work, though technically > that would be like scheme, common lisp, arc, clojure, et al being I didn't notice the [2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5] patches, the new file should be fine I think Greetings, Maxime