On 12 March 2012 22:09, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> or as <eapi value="15" />. > > No, definitely not. That's not the XML style.
Sure, but these examples are just examples after all. And XML is only being used for an example use case, but there are many more structured formats than XML. Some of us are mostly just worried that the proposals as they stand won't be resilient enough to allow a future that isn't bash. >> Part of the point of all of this is that we shouldn't have to guess >> what future EAPIs will look like. > > I'm just suggesting a way which will support a little more than > bash-based solutions. We could also assume that if a file doesn't match > the regexp at all, it's a unsupported EAPI. I just find a top-down regexp solution dangerously naive, as its infering that the first line that matches the regexp *is* the EAPI requirement field, when depending on the actual format used, that may not be the case. If for example, a format is machine generated, and the EAPI declaration accidentally comes after something that *isnt* an EAPI declaration but by the regexp, LOOKS like one, then the probing mechanism will resolve the WRONG value. And that doesn't strike me as being very resilient. -- Kent perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"
