| 1 |
On 11/06/2016 05:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I've collected various ideas on operator changes on a wiki page [1]. |
| 4 |
> I've tried to stay open-minded and cover every possibility, even though |
| 5 |
> I doubt some of them would be even considered. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So, what are your comments? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I read through the whole thing, and... it's overwhelming. A lot of the |
| 13 |
later proposals would be affected by the first one, the reordering of |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>=app-foo/bar-x.y.z |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
to |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
app-foo/bar >= x.y.z |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Maybe it makes sense to discuss that first, since it impacts so many of |
| 22 |
the rest? In that proposal, the one problem mentioned is that the syntax |
| 23 |
would collide with the subslot dependency syntax. For example, right |
| 24 |
now, if I want to depend on SLOT=4 of app-foo/bar and I need my package |
| 25 |
to rebuild when app-foo/bar changes subslots, then I would use |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
app-foo/bar:4= |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
With the infix change, this becomes a problem if I add an "==" version |
| 30 |
operator on the end: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
app-foo/bar:4===4.1 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If we're changing everything already, though, can't we adjust the syntax |
| 35 |
for the subslot operators? I didn't know that ":4=" was the syntax that |
| 36 |
we used to depend on both a slot and a subslot. My first impression is |
| 37 |
that it would make more sense to use ":=4", since that can be read as |
| 38 |
"slot equals 4", just like ":*" means "slot whatever". It's not a |
| 39 |
perfect translation, but it sounds better than ":4=", and ":=4" looks |
| 40 |
like a stronger version of ":4", which is accurate. |
Archives