1 |
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:38 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
[...] |
4 |
> > [...] |
5 |
> > > > > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse |
6 |
> > > > > > |
7 |
> > > > > > I really don't like the reordering thing. Even the |
8 |
> > > > > > restricted syntax does not fix the issue with '^^ ( a b ) |
9 |
> > > > > > b? ( a )' already mentioned here. It'd be much better and |
10 |
> > > > > > simpler for the spec just to assign a fixed value and use |
11 |
> > > > > > the solving rules with those. |
12 |
> > > > > |
13 |
> > > > > You're not going to convince me by providing examples that are |
14 |
> > > > > utterly broken by design and meaningless ;-). |
15 |
> > > > |
16 |
> > > > Well... if it's so obvious that the example is broken by design |
17 |
> > > > that you don't even bother to explain why, I assume you have an |
18 |
> > > > algorithm for that. Where is the code ? What are the numbers ? |
19 |
> > > > How many ebuilds might fail after reordering ? How can this be |
20 |
> > > > improved ? |
21 |
> > > |
22 |
> > > Are you arguing for the sake of arguing here? I just presumed that |
23 |
> > > this example is so obviously broken there is no point wasting any |
24 |
> > > more time on it. The code of nsolve clearly detects that, so I |
25 |
> > > don't really understand what you're trying to prove here. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > Those are real questions. You should take breath, think a bit about |
28 |
> > it, and try to run the 2 possible orderings of the ^^ through |
29 |
> > nsolve or even solve.py. They both are very happy (and are right to |
30 |
> > be) with the above ordering. You might want to think a bit more |
31 |
> > about what is the relation between this broken 10 chars example and |
32 |
> > the 10 lines python targets one below. |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > You should also realize that all the above questions have already |
35 |
> > been answered in length if you do as I suggest. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> No. I have already spent too much time on this. We're already long |
38 |
> past all useful use cases, and now I feel like you're going to argue |
39 |
> to death just to find a perfect algorithm that supports every absurd |
40 |
> construct anyone can even write, if only to figure out the construct |
41 |
> is completely useless. |
42 |
|
43 |
I'm not going to argue to death. It's already proven reordering is |
44 |
broken. |
45 |
|
46 |
> If you want to play with it more, then please by all means do so. |
47 |
|
48 |
There is nothing to do for reordering. It's broken by design. |
49 |
|
50 |
> However, do not expect me to waste any more of my time on it. I've |
51 |
> done my part, the code works for all reasonable use cases and solves |
52 |
> all the problems I needed solving. If you want more, then it's your |
53 |
> job to do it and solve the resulting issues. |
54 |
|
55 |
Like... writing code handling all the cases and describing how it |
56 |
works ? We're past that. The only thing we're not past is that you fail |
57 |
to understand it and attempt to block it. |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
Alexis. |