| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs) |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> > """ |
| 6 |
>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
| 7 |
>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
| 8 |
>> > app-arch/xz-utils" |
| 9 |
>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
| 10 |
>> > virtual/pkgconfig" |
| 11 |
>> > """ |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> > becomes the following under the proposal: |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> > """ |
| 16 |
>> > DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
| 17 |
>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
| 18 |
>> > app-arch/xz-utils" |
| 19 |
>> > dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" |
| 20 |
>> > """ |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Which is longer than the original. ;-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I see 5 lines in the first version, and 4 in the second. I also see |
| 25 |
> either someone who counted wrong, or basing that statement purely on |
| 26 |
> byte count (which is frankly arguing to argue on your part). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Can we agree that both counting of lines and characters is silly? ;-) |
| 29 |
My point was that the new syntax isn't significantly more compact than |
| 30 |
the present one. In one case there is another variable assignment, |
| 31 |
in the other case you need an additional "dep:build? ( |
| 32 |
virtual/pkgconfig )" group. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the |
| 35 |
argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would |
| 36 |
outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for |
| 37 |
dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to |
| 38 |
remember both. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Ulrich |
Archives