| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> How about this then: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> | This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``. |
| 6 |
> | This section defines one or more repository structure definitions |
| 7 |
> | using non-negative sequential integer keys. The definition with |
| 8 |
> | the ``0`` key is the most preferred structure. The package manager |
| 9 |
> | should ignore any formats it does not recognize. If this section |
| 10 |
> | is not present, the package manager should behave as if only ``flat`` |
| 11 |
> | structure were specified. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I don't want people to skip numbers, and I want to avoid confusion |
| 14 |
> between 0/1 as initial number. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I believe "sequential" is still somewhat ambiguous, and I wouldn't |
| 17 |
split "non-negative integer" which is a technical term. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
How about "consecutive non-negative integer keys"? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ulrich |
Archives