[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC:sys-apps/portage @overlay atoms postfix support

[Steven J Long]

AllenJB wrote:

> lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler <a3li@g.o> wrote:
>>> For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting
>>> confused over the different meanings of the @ sign.
>>>
> Personally I think the PHP namespace syntax issue is a very good
> analogy. There's an established syntax, even if it's not a written
> standard, already used in a very similar situation, and that should be
> taken into account.
>
Why can't we just use the cleanest syntax, irrespective of what external
projects do? Surely that's the point of standing back and facilitating their
use of the tree; so that we can decide what and *how* would be useful for
all Gentoo users.
 
> You appear to be the only one who's arguing against that syntax. As a
> user, I have to agree that using @ for multiple purposes, even if it
> can't be applied to the same purposes in different locations, is
> potentially confusing, even if not just plain silly.
>
> As a side note, I think I've read somewhere that it may in the future be
> possible to specify sets in package.* (which I assume would be done
> using the @set-name syntax), but can't remember where off-hand. This may
> have just been a suggestion, but if it ever is implemented, it would
> surely add to the confusion.
>
I don't see the ambiguity; it's perfectly unambiguous to a lexer, and
immediately apparent to a user too. If it's got an @ at the beginning, it's
a set name. If an atom has an @ after the package name (and possibly version
etc) it means "from that overlay."

Note that I think we can use the syntax elsewhere, without ambiguity.

Surely it would be best simply to ask end-users which of a few variants
they'd find easiest to work with? Or indeed for their suggestions; after
all, they spend a lot more time engaging with the cli/config files than we
do.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)