Thanks Tristan. TL;DR I think we largely agree. I don't see anything objectionable in the current proposal. If we could raise an issue for the enhancement (read: reduction of duplication in element declaration) and make that fast-follow, that would be great.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:59 PM Tristan Van Berkom < [email protected]> wrote: > Quick follow up... > > > On Jul 30, 2020, at 7:27 PM, Douglas Winship < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > [...] > > >> Other than that, it's pretty verbose. I was envisioning something like: > >> build-depends: > >> - liba.bst > >> - compiler.bst [toolchain] > >> - platform.bst [platform] > > > > That would be a pretty useful format. It preserves the option of adding > dependencies as a single line. (I'm assuming that multiple tags could be > added on the same row, to one dependency.) > > > > It's much less powerful than having a dictionary though. A dict gives > the plugin designer the flexibility to make config as complex or as simple > as it needs to be. > > I sympathize with the desire for one liner dependency declarations but > don’t find this particularly realistic or nearly powerful enough, also I > favor staying closer to YAML and avoiding additional custom value parsing. > To be clear, I put that out there to give context to my thinking. Not adding more syntactic sugar at this point and staying closer to what we already have is probably the best approach. > [...] > > > > I like the idea of being able to group dependencies like this. In a > large element declaration with a lot of dependencies, this could save a lot > of time and space. There are some concerns though: > > I would hope for this to be a separate thread if the conclusion is reached > that this is a good approach (I already favor this approach). > +1. If you could file an issue for this and mention it in the MR that would be great. Cheers, Sander [...] > Cheers, > -Tristan >
