On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:10:12 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: [...] > > > Stand-alone makes little sense (and little trouble) but as you > > > could have seen it's used nested in other thingies: > > > > > > 1. || ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) > > > > > > 2. ?? ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) > > > > > > 3. ^^ ( ( a b ) ( c d ) e ) > > > > Yeah that's the nesting problem causing a parse error. > > Those should be expanded to implications. What I'm relying onto is > > all clauses to be of the form '[list of conditions]? [list of > > constraints]' > > I've noticed that you turned the implications into multi-conditions, > breaking all my scripts ;-). Is the [list of conditions] conjunctive > or disjunctive?
conjunctive as in foo? ( bar? ( baz ) ) -> [foo,bar]?[baz] [...] > > > The question is whether we want to: > > > > > > a. actually try to solve this nesting insanity, > > > > > > b. declare it unsupported and throw REQUIRED_USE mismatch on user, > > > > > > c. ban it altogether. > > > > > > I don't think it is *that* insane to support nesting :) > > > > || ( ^^ ( ?? ( a b ) c ( d e ) ) f ) If you really need that then you'd need to expand it manually. It seems better to have it expanded internally automatically. Remember you were the one wanting to keep || & co because they're simpler to read and write ;) Alexis.
