| 1 |
2015-05-03 1:30 GMT+03:00 Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 3 May 2015 at 10:18, Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> We have "idn" or "gnutls" or "python" etc USE flags after all, not |
| 7 |
>> "support_international_names_in_blah" or |
| 8 |
>> "allow_secure_news_fetching_in_foo" or "build_scripting_support_for_baz". |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Or I just didn't get you here, sorry me in this case :) |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The difference is semantics. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> "idn" *is* saying "Support for international names" ( not in, but _for_ ) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> and python very often *is* saying "Support for python" ( not in, but _for_ |
| 19 |
> ) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> That's "for", not "by". For support *by* python, an explicit python |
| 22 |
> use-flag is not entirely necessary. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Just like you presently don't have ( and we don't have ) a "USE=c" flag |
| 25 |
> just to make sure you have a C compiler. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> What does it matter to a user that its in C++14 ? It doesn't. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> And end user is more concerned with "what does this do for me". |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> If for instance a specific user visible tool became magically available |
| 32 |
> with "USE=C++14", and that was the only tool that became visible as a |
| 33 |
> result, that would, for example, be really silly. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> If a useflag doesn't tell me what it does for me, then what impetus is |
| 36 |
> there for me to toggle it? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> For instance, Seamonkey doesn't have a USE=perl flag. Nor should it have |
| 39 |
> one. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> It does however have a USE=crypt flag, which utilizes perl as part of its |
| 42 |
> work. ( And its only a compile time dependency also ). |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> But you seem to want USE=perl # turn on crypt features |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Which is inherently backwards. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> There is still places where that makes a degree of sense, but in cases |
| 49 |
> like "give new user facing features features" an ambiguous "C++" toggle is |
| 50 |
> not going to be communicating intent in an appropriate manner. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Well, I can see your point. But I don't see any reasonable alternative --- |
| 53 |
this functionality can't be generalized by any name, except "c++14" --- |
| 54 |
that's only thing in common. Moreover, this is (I hope) a _temporal_ |
| 55 |
solution, until there's a gcc with needed level of support. And of course |
| 56 |
we can put a message about this flag in eclass and/or on LeechCraft site. |
Archives