| 1 |
Zac Medico posted on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:35:09 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Soname dependency resolution is enabled when --ignore-soname-deps=n is |
| 4 |
> specified, and [...] |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Can that option possibly be renamed? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
"Ignore" is functionally a negative, as in "don't consider". As a |
| 9 |
result, --ignore-sonames-deps=n is a double-negative that actually |
| 10 |
enables something, and it becomes rather difficult to reason about what |
| 11 |
you're actually telling portage to do. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Unfortunately, I'm confused enough myself that I don't have any |
| 14 |
suggestions for any better option name. =:^( |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In case there's any doubt about how much trouble English speakers often |
| 18 |
have with multiple negation, I follow a linguists blog called LanguageLog, |
| 19 |
that regularly features examples of "misnegation", in which all sorts of |
| 20 |
people have ended up saying the opposite of what they obviously intended |
| 21 |
because of an incorrect number of negations. People really do have |
| 22 |
trouble sorting it out, and some of the examples are actually quite |
| 23 |
humorous. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Here's a google on "misnegation". At least from here, the top three hits |
| 26 |
are Language log, with #3 being a big list of posts on the topic. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
https://www.google.com/search?q=misnegation&ie=UTF-8 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
And here's one of the more amusing ones, a billboard at a(n apparently |
| 31 |
UK) petrol/gas station: |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14927 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
(FWIW, I recently emailed the author of a popular FLOSS community |
| 36 |
standards blog about a misnegation as well. He fixed it, and sent me a |
| 37 |
nice reply/thanks.) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
So, umm... Let's come up with some other option name here, one that |
| 41 |
doesn't invoke multiple negation to turn ON a function, and thus hurt to |
| 42 |
think about, if at all possible. =:^/ |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Tho arguably with the double negation turning something ON, at least |
| 45 |
we're not misnegating here. It's confusing and hard to think about, but |
| 46 |
AFAICT, logically correct. =:^) Of course that doesn't mean people can |
| 47 |
actually /use/ it correctly, thus the problem. =:^\ |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 51 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 52 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives