| 1 |
On 12 March 2012 22:09, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> or as <eapi value="15" />. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> No, definitely not. That's not the XML style. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Sure, but these examples are just examples after all. And XML is only |
| 8 |
being used for an example use case, but there are many more |
| 9 |
structured formats than XML. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Some of us are mostly just worried that the proposals as they stand |
| 12 |
won't be resilient enough to allow a future that isn't bash. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
>> Part of the point of all of this is that we shouldn't have to guess |
| 15 |
>> what future EAPIs will look like. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'm just suggesting a way which will support a little more than |
| 18 |
> bash-based solutions. We could also assume that if a file doesn't match |
| 19 |
> the regexp at all, it's a unsupported EAPI. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I just find a top-down regexp solution dangerously naive, as its |
| 22 |
infering that the first line that matches the regexp *is* the EAPI |
| 23 |
requirement field, when depending on the actual format used, that may |
| 24 |
not be the case. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If for example, a format is machine generated, and the EAPI |
| 27 |
declaration accidentally comes after something that *isnt* an EAPI |
| 28 |
declaration but by the regexp, LOOKS like one, then the probing |
| 29 |
mechanism will resolve the WRONG value. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
And that doesn't strike me as being very resilient. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Kent |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 37 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
Archives