On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:18:31 +0000
Alec Warner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Brian Harring wrote:
> >
> >>> > from diffball (under current EAPIs)
> >>>
> >>> > """
> >>> > RDEPEND=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
> >>> >         >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
> >>> >         app-arch/xz-utils"
> >>> > DEPEND="${RDEPEND}
> >>> >         virtual/pkgconfig"
> >>> > """
> >>>
> >>> > becomes the following under the proposal:
> >>>
> >>> > """
> >>> > DEPENDENCIES=">=sys-libs/zlib-1.1.4
> >>> >         >=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.2
> >>> >         app-arch/xz-utils"
> >>> >         dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )"
> >>> > """
> >>>
> >>> Which is longer than the original. ;-)
> >
> >> I see 5 lines in the first version, and 4 in the second.  I also
> >> see either someone who counted wrong, or basing that statement
> >> purely on byte count (which is frankly arguing to argue on your
> >> part).
> >
> > Can we agree that both counting of lines and characters is
> > silly? ;-) My point was that the new syntax isn't significantly
> > more compact than the present one. In one case there is another
> > variable assignment, in the other case you need an additional
> > "dep:build? ( virtual/pkgconfig )" group.
> >
> > Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the
> > argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would
> > outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for
> > dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to
> > remember both.
> 
> I agree it is a con, but is it a blocker? I mean basically any change
> proposed requires know the old way, and the new way..that is how
> changes work...

That's why people have to think changes through before making them,
and they have to think whether the benefits outweigh the problems
introduced.

So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to