| 1 |
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:10:12 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> > > Stand-alone makes little sense (and little trouble) but as you |
| 5 |
> > > could have seen it's used nested in other thingies: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > 1. || ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > 2. ?? ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > 3. ^^ ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Yeah that's the nesting problem causing a parse error. |
| 14 |
> > Those should be expanded to implications. What I'm relying onto is |
| 15 |
> > all clauses to be of the form '[list of conditions]? [list of |
| 16 |
> > constraints]' |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I've noticed that you turned the implications into multi-conditions, |
| 19 |
> breaking all my scripts ;-). Is the [list of conditions] conjunctive |
| 20 |
> or disjunctive? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
conjunctive as in foo? ( bar? ( baz ) ) -> [foo,bar]?[baz] |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[...] |
| 26 |
> > > The question is whether we want to: |
| 27 |
> > > |
| 28 |
> > > a. actually try to solve this nesting insanity, |
| 29 |
> > > |
| 30 |
> > > b. declare it unsupported and throw REQUIRED_USE mismatch on user, |
| 31 |
> > > |
| 32 |
> > > c. ban it altogether. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > I don't think it is *that* insane to support nesting :) |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> || ( ^^ ( ?? ( a b ) c ( d e ) ) f ) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If you really need that then you'd need to expand it manually. It seems |
| 41 |
better to have it expanded internally automatically. |
| 42 |
Remember you were the one wanting to keep || & co because they're |
| 43 |
simpler to read and write ;) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Alexis. |
Archives