On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:25:33 +0300 Mart Raudsepp <[email protected]> wrote: > Are we sure := and :* is the syntax that makes sense once we try to > cover some of the above with new syntax?
:= and :* covers the cases that can be covered with existing dependency ranges. If you want to cover things that need horrible || hacks with the current dependency format, you also need either to add ||= and ||* dependencies (which run against the definition of ||) or start supporting [>=2&<3] ranged dependencies. := and :* are appropriate. Your objections to them are based upon limitations with the current dependency format, and have nothing to do with := and :* themselves. They're not real limitations, either, since as Tiziano points out, in the real world there's a neat correspondence between version ranges and slots, and if there aren't you can't deal with them anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
