Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:38:10
Message-Id: 20161112033730.62c2c3ee@katipo2.lan
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one by "Michał Górny"
1 On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:53:40 +0100
2 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > dev-foo/bar[>=3][foo] # version + USE
5
6 I kinda find this asking for problems with visual ambiguity.
7
8 Use different grouping symbols or supercede the USE syntax entirely.
9
10 dev-foo/bar[foo]#(>=3)
11
12 Or something. I'm also suggesting here the possibility to define 2-symbol
13 openers instead of 1, like is common in quoting systems, eg:
14
15 ${thingshere}
16 #{thingshere}
17 &{thingshere}
18
19 That way you have more wiggle room for more punctuation abuse later.
20
21 ....orrr we could do away with punctuation abuse and make "[]" be a "Parameter space"
22
23
24 dev-foo/bar[u:foo,v:>=3]
25
26 Where the general form is:
27
28 [NAME:VAL,VAL,VAL,NAME:VAL,VAL]
29
30 Where
31
32 NAME=u == "use requirement"
33 NAME=v == "version requirement"
34
35 I know I'm painting a bike shed here, but I remember years ago suggesting the
36 last feature we added should have planned for a more future-extensible syntax,
37 and here we are again, bodging syntax entirely instead of simply extending the defined one.
38
39 Punctuation is precious and rare, and so you should exploit only as little as you need.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New version constraints: variant one konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com>