| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 18/09/12 04:11 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200 Michał Górny |
| 6 |
> <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact |
| 8 |
>> problem discussed which is solved by this syntax other than |
| 9 |
>> cosmetics. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Perhaps you should read the GLEP then. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
IIRC, there were no *problems* listed in the glep. There were only a |
| 15 |
few things listed that DEPENDENCIES provides advantages over, and a |
| 16 |
few things that are (to varying degrees, depending on the dev) |
| 17 |
considered to be undesirable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 21 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBY2/kACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCcewD9FzAFNIrkumqyI3dZrkshNStu |
| 24 |
t5cqqE5YWYltwJwmW0IA/RQAJk2wtzdXp/4NDvJn3zZ3PJhjFODmonRdWab4u/Q7 |
| 25 |
=g1Xe |
| 26 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives