Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] depgraph: soname dependency resolution (282639)

[Zac Medico]

On 02/13/2015 07:03 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:35:09 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> Soname dependency resolution is enabled when --ignore-soname-deps=n is
>> specified, and [...]
>
> Can that option possibly be renamed?
>
> "Ignore" is functionally a negative, as in "don't consider".  As a
> result, --ignore-sonames-deps=n is a double-negative that actually
> enables something, and it becomes rather difficult to reason about what
> you're actually telling portage to do.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm confused enough myself that I don't have any
> suggestions for any better option name. =:^(

Well, the "ignore" prefix is there to express that something is being
ignored. In a couple of years, we'll be able to enable soname dependency
resolution by default, and the --ignore-soname-deps=y option will be
there for people to use in rare cases where it might be helpful (like on
outdated systems where soname metadata isn't available for installed
packages).

> In case there's any doubt about how much trouble English speakers often
> have with multiple negation, I follow a linguists blog called LanguageLog,
> that regularly features examples of "misnegation", in which all sorts of
> people have ended up saying the opposite of what they obviously intended
> because of an incorrect number of negations.  People really do have
> trouble sorting it out, and some of the examples are actually quite
> humorous.
>
> Here's a google on "misnegation".  At least from here, the top three hits
> are Language log, with #3 being a big list of posts on the topic.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=misnegation&ie=UTF-8
>
> And here's one of the more amusing ones, a billboard at a(n apparently
> UK) petrol/gas station:
>
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14927
>
> (FWIW, I recently emailed the author of a popular FLOSS community
> standards blog about a misnegation as well.  He fixed it, and sent me a
> nice reply/thanks.)
>
>
> So, umm... Let's come up with some other option name here, one that
> doesn't invoke multiple negation to turn ON a function, and thus hurt to
> think about, if at all possible. =:^/
>
> Tho arguably with the double negation turning something ON, at least
> we're not misnegating here.  It's confusing and hard to think about, but
> AFAICT, logically correct. =:^)  Of course that doesn't mean people can
> actually /use/ it correctly, thus the problem. =:^\

I see what you mean, but I still think having "ignore" in then name is a
good way to express the meaning. It's similar to the --nodeps option,
which also begins with a negative.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac