| 1 |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:43:45 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition: |
| 7 |
> > - treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV. |
| 8 |
> > One of the main reasons to implement them as sets was to remove |
| 9 |
> > special case code in emerge, so I'm quite opposed to adding new |
| 10 |
> > special cases instead. And I'm quite sure that such a separation |
| 11 |
> > would cause confusion, and some isues regarding (end-user) |
| 12 |
> > documentation. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> We're talking about one special case in the command-line processing, |
| 15 |
> to support the existing usage that all our users are used to. It adds |
| 16 |
> practically nothing in execution time, simply expanding to @system |
| 17 |
> @world, and means that users who don't want to know about sets, or |
| 18 |
> are not thinking in set terms at the time of using emerge, will get |
| 19 |
> the result they expect. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It also means we'd indefinitely have to carry another special |
| 22 |
case around for legacy reasons (removing it later would be even more |
| 23 |
painful than doing the switch now). You know, those are the things we |
| 24 |
want to get rid off, as they really make our life harder in the long |
| 25 |
run. YOu may consider it trivial in this cse, but these things always |
| 26 |
look trivial when you're adding them, and you curse about them when you |
| 27 |
have to modify the code later on. |
| 28 |
Maybe the best solution is to drop the non-prefixed versions of 'world' |
| 29 |
and 'system' completely .... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Marius |
Archives