On wto, 2017-05-30 at 11:34 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > Sidenote: I just realized '|| ( a b c )' with left-most preference > > > might be better since we are not dealing with binary variables but > > > ternary ones (user disabled, user enabled, unspecified). 'USE="" || > > > ( a b c )' should evaluate to 'a', 'USE="-a" || ( a b c )' should > > > evaluate to 'b'. I don't see how to rewrite that with pure > > > implications. > > > > The ternary concept is not exactly in line with how we handle USE > > flags now. It's more like multi-layer binary. My proposal solved the > > problem you were trying to solve via establishing priorities -- I > > find it simpler to reorder the flags and use binary logic than to > > invent a more complex logic to solve the same problem. > > I've re-read your proposal entirely and I don't see where you describe > how to establish priorities. You describe how users can specify those, > but nowhere do I see any default priority being mandated. If you > describe and mandate it, then all is good I think. As I said, there > are plenty of ways to solve the problem but it has to be mandated > otherwise you're just postponing issues, not solving them. >
Hmm, I'm sorry then, I must've missed specifying it. Of course the intent was that the default preference was deterministic. I would go for 'left-most first' idea, as that seems the most obvious. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
