| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this |
| 7 |
>> early stage, but I believe that ENFORCED_USE can be easily confused |
| 8 |
>> with use.force in profiles. MAPPED_USE? USE_MAP? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Why do we even need a new name ? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This was under the assumption that we would somewhat restrict the |
| 13 |
syntax. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sure, if someone comes up with an algorithm that will give a unique |
| 16 |
and predictable solution with current REQUIRED_USE syntax then we can |
| 17 |
keep the old name. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ulrich |
Archives