| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> In particular, I was thinking we could reuse this syntax: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> || ( A:= B:= ) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> to express any-of dependencies that do not support runtime switching |
| 7 |
> of providers -- since that is pretty much what := does to slots. |
| 8 |
> This would save us from creating a new syntax like '||= ()' [1]. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Please don't, because it makes things pretty much unreadable. If you |
| 11 |
want an operator like || ( ) but without runtime switching, then |
| 12 |
define one (e.g., <<= or ||= as suggested in [1]), but don't try |
| 13 |
to inherit properties from its children. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
An EAPI bump will be required in any case. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ulrich |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489458 |
Archives