| 1 |
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:25:33 +0300 |
| 2 |
Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Are we sure := and :* is the syntax that makes sense once we try to |
| 4 |
> cover some of the above with new syntax? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
:= and :* covers the cases that can be covered with existing dependency |
| 7 |
ranges. If you want to cover things that need horrible || hacks with the |
| 8 |
current dependency format, you also need either to add ||= and ||* |
| 9 |
dependencies (which run against the definition of ||) or start |
| 10 |
supporting [>=2&<3] ranged dependencies. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
:= and :* are appropriate. Your objections to them are based upon |
| 13 |
limitations with the current dependency format, and have nothing to do |
| 14 |
with := and :* themselves. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
They're not real limitations, either, since as Tiziano points out, in |
| 17 |
the real world there's a neat correspondence between version ranges |
| 18 |
and slots, and if there aren't you can't deal with them anyway. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives