On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Benedikt Morbach wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >> I'd like to get more comments on whether to break stuff to get wider > >> adoption > >> or make it opt in at the risk of noone using it.. ;) > > > > > > I vote to break the existing function too. With two possible tweaks: > > - we could make a new function and die-deprecate the old one altogether, to > > avoid possible misuse to make it pass for some weird reason > > I don't think that's needed. > The old alternatives_for checks that it got 3+2*n arguments and the > new one will check for 4+2*n arguments, so neither would be able to > run with the arguments that were intended for the other one. > > > - we could add a check that the description has a space in it (as they > > should always be at least two or three words to be meaningful, IMHO) > > Good idea, avoids useless descriptions and teaches people that try to > add them what the intended use of the field is.
Latest version is now on Gerrit. Someone please test and comment. https://galileo.mailstation.de/gerrit/#/c/10144 https://galileo.mailstation.de/gerrit/#/c/10145 https://galileo.mailstation.de/gerrit/#/c/10146 -- Bo Ørsted Andresen _______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
