Ulrich Mueller wrote:

>> As I said; generality in lib functions seems like a useful thing.
> 
> Other ebuild variables are space separated lists, so why should DOCS
> be an exception?
>
Because we're doing it right this time, while allowing existing usage. IOW
you can quite happily continue to use your space-separated list and it
won't matter. If you do ever need a bit more, it'll already be in place. If
you never do, how will it hurt you?
 
> So far nobody has shown a real-life example of an existing ebuild that
> could profit from the array syntax.
>
I think Duncan answered the point quite while. In summary that's why for
instance no filenames with spaces (leave alone all the other characters you
can't deal with atm) can be safely handled by any of your ebuild structure,
unless it comes from a glob, and is never manipulated or referenced in and
of itself. (Unless you wish to go down the eval route, which believe me is
not fun at all.)

If you're saying "fine we don't need any more control in those packages"
nothing I can say will be of any use. (NB: packages not programs.) Are you
really arguing that reduced functionality is a good thing?
 
>> There's a quote I read from what is imo a classic computing text[1]
>> (from the 70s, never seen it referenced in any papers or anything):
> 
>> "Why do we never have time to do it right,
>> but always plenty of time to do it over."
> 
> "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."
>  - Joh. Clauberg (1654)
> 
"Let him who thinks it is not broken, not interrupt the person fixing it."
Chinese proverb (wrongly attributed to some Ancient Roman.)