| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:18:31 +0000 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs) |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> > """ |
| 11 |
> >>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
| 12 |
> >>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
| 13 |
> >>> > app-arch/xz-utils" |
| 14 |
> >>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND} |
| 15 |
> >>> > virtual/pkgconfig" |
| 16 |
> >>> > """ |
| 17 |
> >>> |
| 18 |
> >>> > becomes the following under the proposal: |
| 19 |
> >>> |
| 20 |
> >>> > """ |
| 21 |
> >>> > DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4 |
| 22 |
> >>> > >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2 |
| 23 |
> >>> > app-arch/xz-utils" |
| 24 |
> >>> > dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" |
| 25 |
> >>> > """ |
| 26 |
> >>> |
| 27 |
> >>> Which is longer than the original. ;-) |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> >> I see 5 lines in the first version, and 4 in the second. I also |
| 30 |
> >> see either someone who counted wrong, or basing that statement |
| 31 |
> >> purely on byte count (which is frankly arguing to argue on your |
| 32 |
> >> part). |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > Can we agree that both counting of lines and characters is |
| 35 |
> > silly? ;-) My point was that the new syntax isn't significantly |
| 36 |
> > more compact than the present one. In one case there is another |
| 37 |
> > variable assignment, in the other case you need an additional |
| 38 |
> > "dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" group. |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the |
| 41 |
> > argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would |
| 42 |
> > outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for |
| 43 |
> > dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to |
| 44 |
> > remember both. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> I agree it is a con, but is it a blocker? I mean basically any change |
| 47 |
> proposed requires know the old way, and the new way..that is how |
| 48 |
> changes work... |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
That's why people have to think changes through before making them, |
| 51 |
and they have to think whether the benefits outweigh the problems |
| 52 |
introduced. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem |
| 55 |
discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Best regards, |
| 59 |
Michał Górny |
Archives