Vaeth wrote: > The point is that in contrast to shell code you need additional > pre-knowledge to read or write it. > True. >> the syntax looks fine and the syntax is in fact still bash. > > I do not want to start a discussion now whether this is > implicit semantic or sort of an extended syntax - it depends on the point > of view. But in any case it involves new (and actually redundant) > "keywords" in the ebuild. > Yes it's "extended syntax" if you like. > The knowledge needed to write or read ebuilds should be kept > as small as possible.
Agreed. This is similar to the "make it look like as much like a from-src build as possible" argument. I would question just how much of a burden this adds to the knowledge required to write an ebuild, however.
