On Friday 10 February 2006 01:20, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Mmm. Do you consider the cost of slightly simplified wording in the > GLEP now to be worth extra effort that may be required in the future by > some especially whacked out port? I'd prefer to see at least a note in > the GLEP stating that three part keywords are legal if they ever become > necessary. What do you think about something like this?
"Although the use of 2-parts keywords is suggested, the use of extended keywords with 3 or more parts is not denied. In case of an inevitable need for 3 or more parts keywords, those keywords can still be used. > Yeah, *I* know how they work. I suspect that many people reading the > GLEP, however, are going to go "Huh? Why do we need this lot at all?". Valid point, will check to put that in the GLEP. > Then your example code is wrong :) That's vapier's example code actually, and no it's not wrong. Last entry, for the same variable, rules. Of course, variables merges together. -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgp2cUdsmfrDw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
