| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:36:12 -0400 |
| 2 |
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 12/08/15 01:52 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 8 |
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:39:21 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 9 |
> > <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> ...OR we could just adjust PMS to assume flag order determines |
| 12 |
> >> precedence and still not bother with a new operator: For "^^ ( |
| 13 |
> >> a b c )" if a then b,c forced-off; elif b then c forced-off; |
| 14 |
> >> elif !c then a forced-on; fi |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > that's another possible option indeed |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Is this something that we would need to change PMS for? Syntax |
| 20 |
> stays the same, just the way portage (in particular here) acts on it |
| 21 |
> would be different... For testing, is what I'm thinking, say tied |
| 22 |
> to a "resolve-required-use" feature? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If we don't -need- to change PMS we could just -do- this and see if |
| 25 |
> it works. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
we could since that's de facto equivalent to the +/- syntax; however, I |
| 28 |
have serious doubts that the outcome will be what people who wrote the |
| 29 |
REQUIRED_USE line intended |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
that'd be a very good proof of concept though |
Archives