| 1 |
On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:05:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200 |
| 7 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> >> Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this |
| 10 |
> >> early stage, but I believe that ENFORCED_USE can be easily confused |
| 11 |
> >> with use.force in profiles. MAPPED_USE? USE_MAP? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > Why do we even need a new name ? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This was under the assumption that we would somewhat restrict the |
| 16 |
> syntax. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Sure, if someone comes up with an algorithm that will give a unique |
| 19 |
> and predictable solution with current REQUIRED_USE syntax then we can |
| 20 |
> keep the old name. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Even if restricting the syntax I'm not sure it is desirable either: If |
| 23 |
we keep current REQUIRED_USE we'll still have cases where it'll fail |
| 24 |
horribly, hence not fixing the issue. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If all you care about is the syntax, then sure it is doable, but the |
| 28 |
semantics have to change, and I don't see much difference in |
| 29 |
restricting the syntax vs. changing its meaning. |
Archives