Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI-1 (or >1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:50:54
Message-Id: 8cd1ed20706172347t5014395bg5fdccfc4adcd466e@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI-1 (or >1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies by Steve Long
1 On 6/18/07, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:
2 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3 > > Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
4 > >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
5 > >> > Paludis allows users to do some-cat/foo[>=4.0&<4-3] and
6 > >> > some-cat/foo[=4.1|=4.2|=4.3] . The syntax isn't particularly pretty,
7 > >> > but it's cleaner than requiring duplication of the cat/pkg. Combined
8 > >> > with :slot deps it should give you everything you need.
9 > >>
10 > >> Seems not bad, do you have plans to refine it before proposing it for
11 > >> the pms?
12 > >
13 > > Well, I'm happy with it like that...
14 > >
15 > but as you said, it ain't pretty: what about simply replacing [] with ()?
16 > && to match || in portage and logical AND in C etc. seems wise too.
17 > Allow both if you *have* to maintain backwards-compatibility, but it makes
18 > it more like portage syntax, which folks are used to:
19 > some-cat/foo(>=4.0&&<4.3) seems clean, for this example.
20 >
21 > To my mind, | seems like a good second-level operator, so one could have:
22 > cat-foo/bar(~3.6||~3.7|>=4.0&&<4.3|>=5.1) while still using the operators
23 > everyone is used to for most things.
24 >
25 > (& makes no sense in that context, of course.)
26
27 If you can, try integrate a name based syntax into the requirement.
28 using decorative characters alone may have their uses, but there are
29 only so many you can use, and so many combinations you can create
30 before all your code starts looking like perl's acme eyedrops. I say
31 name based, because this allows some degree of permitting forward
32 development & enhancement without majorly breaking an existing system
33 :)
34
35 ( im not much of a lisper, but lisp a lot of functionality for the
36 cost of very minimal symbol abuse . .im not saying we should use lisp
37 syntax, but maybe a page from their book in terms of expandability )
38 --
39 Kent
40 ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
41 print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@×××.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
42 --
43 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI-1 (or >1, perhaps) Proposal: AND Dependencies Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>