| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:43:59 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Because a) a future EAPI might want to change EAPI into a function |
| 5 |
>>> rather than a variable, b) there are a zillion ways of setting a |
| 6 |
>>> variable in bash and people already use all of them and c) |
| 7 |
>>> introducing new weird format requirements is silly. |
| 8 |
>> So you're proposing putting the function into the filename? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> No, I'm saying that the data goes into the filename. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
then why not let it go into the file content? |
| 13 |
if data goes into file content, then function is not needed |
| 14 |
you are contradicting with yourself here. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> As he stated, the only credible reason (so far given) bash must be |
| 18 |
>> used to parse EAPI is if it's dynamic, say a function, and that won't |
| 19 |
>> work so well in a filename either. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> No no no. Bash is the only thing that can parse bash. Ebuilds are bash. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Getting the first line of a file using whatever language is just a piece of cake. |
| 24 |
And I don't see why setting a rule on the syntax of EAPI definition is so silly. |
| 25 |
How many ways to define a variable in bash can you think of? |
| 26 |
Is it that hard to come up with a way to normalized the definition? |
| 27 |
Just like charset code normalization, e.g. from UTF-8 to utf8? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Zhang Le, Robert |
| 31 |
GPG key ID: 1E4E2973 |
| 32 |
Fingerprint: 0260 C902 B8F8 6506 6586 2B90 BC51 C808 1E4E 2973 |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives