| 1 |
On 03/12/12 11:57, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled |
| 4 |
>> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality |
| 5 |
>> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call |
| 6 |
>> it an 'ebuild' is dumb, confusing, and counter productive). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as |
| 10 |
> to how best to implement EAPI declarations. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> If thats the case, then G55 ( or something similar ) is practically |
| 15 |
> guaranteed as soon as we want something non-bash. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> -- |
| 21 |
> Kent |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 24 |
> 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I imagine that POSIX Shell is a possibility, although strict compliance |
| 28 |
would mean abandoning a few extensions like the local keyword that are |
| 29 |
probably rather useful in eclasses. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
To make XML a viable substitute for bash, you will need to implement a |
| 32 |
turing complete language in XML, which should probably preclude its use |
| 33 |
in ebuilds. You would likely have better luck with a functional |
| 34 |
programming language, although you are more than welcome to demonstrate |
| 35 |
otherwise. |
Archives