1 |
On 03/08/2012 12:13 AM, Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> Such constructs also cannot be used with any of the other proposed |
4 |
>> solutions. And in fact, nobody is using such things in practice. |
5 |
>> _All_ ebuilds in the Portage tree can be successfully parsed with the |
6 |
>> regexp proposed. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I'm not saying they are valid EAPI syntax; but they are all valid |
9 |
> bash. I tend to assume all authors are as...ignorant as myself. Lets |
10 |
> not give them the rope to hang themselves. |
11 |
|
12 |
Something like DEPEND="foo bar" is also valid bash, and yet we don't |
13 |
allow that either because "foo bar" does not contain valid dependency |
14 |
atoms. Also, keep in mind that we're not allowing people to "hang |
15 |
themselves" with invalid EAPI assignments. We'll simply give them a |
16 |
reasonable error message so that they can quickly and easily correct |
17 |
their mistake. |
18 |
-- |
19 |
Thanks, |
20 |
Zac |