Hisham wrote:
> If they're not "real" in the sense that they are not Gentoo-equivalent
> use flags, then yes, they're not. But if they're not use flags, then
> what are they? I find it better to keep the name than to just invent a
> name and have to explain it to people like "well, they're basically
> like use-flags" every time. Keeping the name is also a way of giving
> credit to Gentoo. I don't consider the name misleading because of
> these implementation details.
>
> Perhaps the best thing to do would be to:
> * disallow global negative flags in configuration files altogether.
> * have the "+" to be an implicit operator.
>
> The difference in syntax would make the difference in semantics clearer.
>
> -- Hisham
>
I don't care about the name, sorry to have given you this impression.
Mine was simply a quite personal "huh, I thought they were supposed to
work like gentoo's use flags", nothing more. But making this clear would
help a lot of users and following your suggestions would be better, I
agree, mainly because allowing users to use something that could not
work as they expect is worse than giving them nothing, imo.
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
