| 1 |
On 14.09.2015 10:41, konsolebox wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:32 PM, konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 14 September 2015 at 20:22, konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> If we use an arithmetic operator like ~> then that could be decided |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> As a counter proposal I'd suggest a different suffix character than |
| 8 |
>>> "*" instead. It just seems less confusing to have something like |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> =cat/foo-1.30+ |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Instead of |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> ~>cat/foo-1.30 |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Because ~> to me conveys some combination of ~ and > effects, when it |
| 17 |
>>> is neither of those two. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> I thought ~> is good as it's already famous to fellow Ruby users but I |
| 20 |
>> don't mind. =cat/foo-1.30+ seems good as well. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> @cat/foo-1.30 is also another. It only uses one symbol doesn't look |
| 23 |
> bad if negated: !@cat/foo-1.30 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Please don't add any more syntactic sugar to dependency strings. |
| 27 |
People might become confused about stuff like this: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
=cat/foo-1.3.1_rc3_p20130829-r42+[!a=,!b?,c(+)]:3= |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Is there any real need to express this in a single line except for |
| 32 |
saving a single line? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
- Manuel |
Archives