| 1 |
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:15:33 +0100 |
| 2 |
Paul Bredbury <brebs@××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > There is a function built_with_use(). |
| 5 |
> > That function reports whether something was built with or without a |
| 6 |
> > specific USE flag. |
| 7 |
> > The sentence above includes the fragment 'was built with or |
| 8 |
> > without'. So it was built. |
| 9 |
> > Uh, oh, but it wasn't built!!?!? |
| 10 |
> > -> Error |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Your logic is flawed. This is what it should be: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Simon is correct, it's your logic that is flawed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
present => USE=foo |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
where present = FALSE, is TRUE no matter whether USE=foo is TRUE or |
| 19 |
FALSE. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The question is: "Was this package built, *with* a particular USE |
| 22 |
> flag?" (note my emphasis, to try to make things clearer.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You're stating the answer you want in your question. We've explained |
| 25 |
that you are asking a different question to the one built_with_use is |
| 26 |
answering. built_with_use is indicating the result of "present => |
| 27 |
USE=foo"; the answer to that question when present=FALSE is always TRUE. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It's not a good idea to embed more logic than necessary into these |
| 30 |
functions; it's best when they do one job only. What you're asking for |
| 31 |
is to embed the has_version check into built_with_use, which would |
| 32 |
prevent built_with_use being used in any way other than the one you have |
| 33 |
thought of. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives