| 1 |
On wto, 2017-05-30 at 11:34 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sidenote: I just realized '|| ( a b c )' with left-most preference |
| 3 |
> > > might be better since we are not dealing with binary variables but |
| 4 |
> > > ternary ones (user disabled, user enabled, unspecified). 'USE="" || |
| 5 |
> > > ( a b c )' should evaluate to 'a', 'USE="-a" || ( a b c )' should |
| 6 |
> > > evaluate to 'b'. I don't see how to rewrite that with pure |
| 7 |
> > > implications. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > The ternary concept is not exactly in line with how we handle USE |
| 10 |
> > flags now. It's more like multi-layer binary. My proposal solved the |
| 11 |
> > problem you were trying to solve via establishing priorities -- I |
| 12 |
> > find it simpler to reorder the flags and use binary logic than to |
| 13 |
> > invent a more complex logic to solve the same problem. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I've re-read your proposal entirely and I don't see where you describe |
| 16 |
> how to establish priorities. You describe how users can specify those, |
| 17 |
> but nowhere do I see any default priority being mandated. If you |
| 18 |
> describe and mandate it, then all is good I think. As I said, there |
| 19 |
> are plenty of ways to solve the problem but it has to be mandated |
| 20 |
> otherwise you're just postponing issues, not solving them. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Hmm, I'm sorry then, I must've missed specifying it. Of course |
| 24 |
the intent was that the default preference was deterministic. I would go |
| 25 |
for 'left-most first' idea, as that seems the most obvious. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Michał Górny |
Archives