On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:27:51 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > How is it possible to do these things encoded in the filename?
For the export example, it's just a matter of using a different bash syntax from what the magic regex expects, which is completely irrelevant if it goes in the filename instead. For the versionator one, you would change the extension at the same time that you changed the version, removing the need to modify the file contents. But the point isn't that we want to be able to do those things. The point is that if the EAPI is in the filename, it's blatantly obvious that it has to be static, but adding strange and unintuitive restrictions on which shell constructs can be used is, well, strange and unintuitive.
