On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:41:09 -0800
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:

> On 03/09/2012 07:21 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > The advantage that the eapi function has over a comment is that
> > it's not magic -- it's just normal bash syntax. So we've addressed
> > that issue at a small performance cost (we're really only sourcing
> > the ebuild up to 'exit').
> 
> Also consider the case where a user syncs after not having updated
> for a couple of months, and the tree contains some ebuilds with EAPIs
> that are not supported by the currently installed package manager.
> 
> In this case, when resolving dependencies and filtering ebuilds based
> on whether or not their EAPI is supported, spawning bash once per
> ebuild is much more costly than the alternatives.

isnt the whole point of the proposal to get eapi without sourcing ?

so that we can use new bash features at local or global scope without
risking that people with an old bash get syntax errors trying to get
the eapi