| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 16/09/12 12:05 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:49PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> There's also the issue of what negations do at the top level... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Yeah, I did skimp on that one; technically speaking, negations |
| 9 |
> aren't required if they prove too much of a pain in the ass. |
| 10 |
> Negation at the top level could be interpretted two ways: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 1) negating against all possible dep types; thus a !dep:build? |
| 13 |
> would be dep:post,run? . Too slick in my view, but who knows, |
| 14 |
> othes may think it straight forward. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 2) Treat it as a negation of the implicit dep:build,run; meaning |
| 17 |
> !dep:build? would be dep:run?. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Unsure of which is preferably at this juncture. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Proposal: Negation only works within the current context. Simpler to |
| 23 |
understand that way. So if the implicit dep:build,run is going to be |
| 24 |
kept (iirc the glep says this is optional and for convenience, so if |
| 25 |
we dropped it in favour of always forcing it that might be good), #2 |
| 26 |
would apply. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This would also infer that: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
dep:build? ( !dep:{anything but build}? ( something ) ) would have no |
| 31 |
meaning and the "!dep:{anything but build}?" condition would just be |
| 32 |
ignored. Probably, without a QA warning since I could see eclasses |
| 33 |
perhaps providing something in a variable or function output that |
| 34 |
might be processed in this manner. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
iF0EAREIAAYFAlBYdqYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB41gD4ygy9SxFODJb/TlUp+23cZ36s |
| 40 |
D+/c6gCaGXIPVoDGlQD/fsE6TcBsDnovBTVA0db4s811rTuih7JpX5LRDuABjfk= |
| 41 |
=0eGL |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives