| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:49 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/11/16 07:09, konsolebox wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Hi, everyone. |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to |
| 7 |
>>> start the second part of the discussion: how to improve version |
| 8 |
>>> operators in a Future EAPI? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> I've collected various ideas on operator changes on a wiki page [1]. |
| 11 |
>>> I've tried to stay open-minded and cover every possibility, even though |
| 12 |
>>> I doubt some of them would be even considered. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> I should warn you that some of the solutions are interlinked to each |
| 15 |
>>> other, and you probably need to look through the whole page first |
| 16 |
>>> before starting to construct an opinion. For example, specific |
| 17 |
>>> solutions to most of the problems depend on whether we enable version |
| 18 |
>>> ranges and in which form. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>> I think we should start by loosely discussing the various ideas |
| 21 |
>>> on the wiki page. Feel free to also point out any missing ideas |
| 22 |
>>> or remarks that would be useful there. |
| 23 |
>>> |
| 24 |
>>> So, what are your comments? |
| 25 |
>>> |
| 26 |
>>> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Future_EAPI/Version_syntax_changes |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>>> -- |
| 29 |
>>> Best regards, |
| 30 |
>>> Michał Górny |
| 31 |
>>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
| 32 |
>> I also like the idea of moving the operator as it's more consistent |
| 33 |
>> and opens new doors to other solutions. |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
>> As for the use of operator & and |, they're quite good, but I'd prefer |
| 36 |
>> the use of Gmail's style where expressions placed in () are processed |
| 37 |
>> with AND, and expressions placed inside {} are processed with OR: |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> dev-foo/bar[>=1.3&<1.5] dev-foo/bar(>=1.3 <1.5) |
| 40 |
>> dev-foo/bar[>=1.3&<1.5&!=1.4.1] dev-foo/bar(>=1.3 <1.5 !=1.4.1) |
| 41 |
>> dev-foo/bar[<1.1|>=1.5] dev-foo/bar{<1.1 >=1.5} |
| 42 |
>> dev-foo/bar[=1.1*|=1.3*|>=1.5] dev-foo/bar{=1.1* =1.3* >=1.5} |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> I find it more readable. The former looks too compressed. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
> Ewww, WTF should we use Google as a (bad) example?! |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I don't care if it's from Google or not, and you shouldn't as well. |
| 49 |
Grow up. It's got nothing to do with the solution. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> And "bracketising" |
| 52 |
> rather than explicit operators is bound to cause confusion |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Subjective, and depends on the person. I quickly adapted to it. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> and errors ... |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
What errors? |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
konsolebox |
Archives