-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 16/09/12 12:05 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:39:49PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> There's also the issue of what negations do at the top level...
>
> Yeah, I did skimp on that one; technically speaking, negations
> aren't required if they prove too much of a pain in the ass.
> Negation at the top level could be interpretted two ways:
>
> 1) negating against all possible dep types; thus a !dep:build?
> would be dep:post,run? . Too slick in my view, but who knows,
> othes may think it straight forward.
>
> 2) Treat it as a negation of the implicit dep:build,run; meaning
> !dep:build? would be dep:run?.
>
> Unsure of which is preferably at this juncture.
>
Proposal: Negation only works within the current context. Simpler to
understand that way. So if the implicit dep:build,run is going to be
kept (iirc the glep says this is optional and for convenience, so if
we dropped it in favour of always forcing it that might be good), #2
would apply.
This would also infer that:
dep:build? ( !dep:{anything but build}? ( something ) ) would have no
meaning and the "!dep:{anything but build}?" condition would just be
ignored. Probably, without a QA warning since I could see eclasses
perhaps providing something in a variable or function output that
might be processed in this manner.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF0EAREIAAYFAlBYdqYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB41gD4ygy9SxFODJb/TlUp+23cZ36s
D+/c6gCaGXIPVoDGlQD/fsE6TcBsDnovBTVA0db4s811rTuih7JpX5LRDuABjfk=
=0eGL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
