| 1 |
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:49:56 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 12:26:59 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > | * An any-of group (||) evaluates to true if at least one of the |
| 6 |
> > | items in it evaluates to true. |
| 7 |
> > | * An exactly-one-of group (^^) evaluates to true if exactly one of |
| 8 |
> > | the items in it evaluates to true, and all the remaining items |
| 9 |
> > | evaluate to false. |
| 10 |
> > | * An at-most-one-of group (??) evaluates to true if at most one of |
| 11 |
> > | the items in it evaluates to true. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > It should be added that any empty group (|| or ^^ or ??) evalutates |
| 14 |
> > to true, because that's what PMS specifies: |
| 15 |
> > https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-780008.2 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> A bit OT, but that is *definitely* counter intuitive. What's the |
| 18 |
> rationale and usecase behind this ? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Annoying special cases like || ( foo? ( ... ) bar? ( ... ) ) . The |
| 21 |
original reason was that old versions of Portage would simply remove |
| 22 |
unmet "flag? ( )" blocks internally. It was kept in EAPI 0 because |
| 23 |
stuff in the tree used it back then. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives