| 1 |
On 8 September 2015 at 03:26, Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> And as the cherry on the cake theere could be |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <> ( foo/bar-1 foo/bar-5 ) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I kinda tried suggesting a similar syntax, but then I realised it |
| 8 |
couldn't work, because it implicitly says "none of these" but it |
| 9 |
doesn't state any sort of "Pull something" |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
And then I wondered what: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
<> ( foo/bar-1 foo/quux-1 ) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
would do and my head exploded with all the pain. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So as verbose as the current syntax may be, its very easy to design |
| 18 |
something worse, so I figure it better not to do anything unless we're |
| 19 |
sure we haven't made a mess of it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
=foo-bar/baz-(<4.9-r999,>5.0) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Or something, where "mixing the package atoms up is impossible", and |
| 24 |
that way the planner could know that the versions applied to a single |
| 25 |
requirement, instead of having to guess what it all means when it sees |
| 26 |
3 specifications for the same package and going crazy with |
| 27 |
backtracking. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Kent |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives