| 1 |
Vaeth wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The point is that in contrast to shell code you need additional |
| 4 |
> pre-knowledge to read or write it. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
True. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>> the syntax looks fine and the syntax is in fact still bash. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I do not want to start a discussion now whether this is |
| 11 |
> implicit semantic or sort of an extended syntax - it depends on the point |
| 12 |
> of view. But in any case it involves new (and actually redundant) |
| 13 |
> "keywords" in the ebuild. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
Yes it's "extended syntax" if you like. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The knowledge needed to write or read ebuilds should be kept |
| 18 |
> as small as possible. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Agreed. This is similar to the "make it look like as much like a from-src |
| 21 |
build as possible" argument. I would question just how much of a burden |
| 22 |
this adds to the knowledge required to write an ebuild, however. |
Archives