| 1 |
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 22:47:24 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 6 November 2016 at 12:52, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hi, everyone. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> <snip> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > So, what are your comments? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Hi, |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Just my 2 cents... |
| 14 |
> I kinda love the prefix nature of the expressions which is consistent |
| 15 |
> and easier to parse. |
| 16 |
> Using infix only for versions and leaving all the rest prefix will |
| 17 |
> create abnormality. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Regards, |
| 20 |
> Alon |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But the main problem with it is that most upstream requirements.txt, |
| 24 |
etc.,... all use the infix method. And I hate to say it, but more and |
| 25 |
more so-called "package management" systems (mostly language specific |
| 26 |
ones) all use that method. So transitioning to that, should make |
| 27 |
package maintenance easier. Possibly even have some automation tools |
| 28 |
to check them during version bumps, etc... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives