1 |
Am 18.01.2014 00:00, schrieb Tom Wijsman: |
2 |
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:35:58 +0100 |
3 |
> Sebastian Luther <SebastianLuther@×××.de> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> The "if entry not in system_set_atoms" line. You're using __contains__ |
6 |
>> there (with the 'in'). You don't use the additional magic provided by |
7 |
>> PackageSet (which is a super class of PackagesSystemSet). |
8 |
> |
9 |
> This is __contains__, which does what I want as far as I can see: |
10 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/api/portage._sets.base-pysrc.html#PackageSet.__contains__ |
11 |
> What is there wrong with this? |
12 |
|
13 |
There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that the builtin set type |
14 |
supports that too. |
15 |
|
16 |
> |
17 |
> As for the additional magic, do you mean containsCPV? Looking at it: |
18 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/api/portage._sets.base-pysrc.html#PackageSet.containsCPV |
19 |
> It seems more complex than is necessary, is there a benefit to this? |
20 |
|
21 |
I thought more about iterAtomsForPackage, which is used in lots of |
22 |
places in the resolver. |
23 |
|
24 |
The comment was about the fact that you're using a more complicated |
25 |
selfmade class instead of a builtin type, even if the builtin type would |
26 |
suffice. The comment made more sense when I was still suggesting to not |
27 |
use PackageSystemSet at all. |