| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Many eclasses (eutils being the most prominent example) contain: |
| 4 |
>> DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Is this of any use? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> The reason that sort of thing is there is because in the olden days |
| 9 |
> before we had specs or EAPIs or anything like that, eclasses were |
| 10 |
> originally designed and implemented as "classes" in an OO type manner. |
| 11 |
> The idea was that there would be a "base" eclass, and then you'd derive |
| 12 |
> "kde", "gnome" etc eclasses from there, all in a nice hierarchy, and |
| 13 |
> you'd be expected to "override" variables like DESCRIPTION as you go |
| 14 |
> down the tree. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> As it turns out, eclasses ended up being used in a completely different |
| 17 |
> way. But you still see bits of the original idea cropping up, such as |
| 18 |
> in the words "class" and "inherit" and "base". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Thanks, this explains why these DESCRIPTIONs are there. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But history left aside, are they still useful today? If not, then they |
| 23 |
should be removed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ulrich |
Archives