| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:20:22PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> >Since you're sliding this in, why not slide it in using use dep |
| 4 |
> >syntax? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >No, not going to fight over this not being in package.mask, what I'm |
| 7 |
> >saying is this _is_ masking of a use dep atom, just use use dep syntax |
| 8 |
> >in the file instead. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> >If y'all get use deps, it'll be a bit simpler for folks to support |
| 11 |
> >then the existing crappy format used imo. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> >Plus, parsing it's easy. |
| 14 |
> >~harring |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Because as you've noted a thousand times, use deps are hard, and this is |
| 17 |
> easy and inevasive. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
*Parsing* use dep syntax is easy. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Actually making, and enforcing a use dep atom is tricky (this isn't |
| 22 |
making a true use dep atom either I might add). |
| 23 |
~harring |
Archives