Tom Wijsman wrote: > Does replacing this "explicit behavior" by "implicit behavior" make > sense for the users in general?
Please don't warp the words. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like that's what you're doing. I'll try to clarify: With explicit I was refering to allowing manual setting and unsetting of USE flags, keywords and masks. With implicit I was refering to those same things happening automatically. USE flags set or unset automatically, keywords set or unset automatically, masks set or unset automatically - as a result of something or other. Any such automations significantly diminish the value of the explicit knobs and are counter-intuitive. If someone is given a mechanism to control which USE flags are set or unset then it's just stupid to go "around" those settings. I understand the temptation to make things happen automatically for ease of development, and that is perfectly fine as long as those automations aren't exposed to users. //Peter
pgpiM9GF5fyrB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
