On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front of qt4
> >> here? I only ask because it would seem that a single
> >> default-enable should suffice in lists like this to indicate a
> >> resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1 -flag2 -flag3 -flag4
> >> )' to me seems like it would be the same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2
> >> flag3 flag4 )'
> >
> > If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone won't
> > help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
> >
>
> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE operator
> what it would need to do when a particular flag is set to default.
> Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would be enabled and all the
> other flags would be disabled, right?
>
> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
>
> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1
> ^^ ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all others
> ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
>
> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
>
> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2
> {,!}flag1? ( +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
>
>
> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of syntax to
> specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to do.
See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
