On 08/11/16 07:09, konsolebox wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Hi, everyone. >> >> Following my previous RFC wrt version operator problems, I'd like to >> start the second part of the discussion: how to improve version >> operators in a Future EAPI? >> >> I've collected various ideas on operator changes on a wiki page [1]. >> I've tried to stay open-minded and cover every possibility, even though >> I doubt some of them would be even considered. >> >> I should warn you that some of the solutions are interlinked to each >> other, and you probably need to look through the whole page first >> before starting to construct an opinion. For example, specific >> solutions to most of the problems depend on whether we enable version >> ranges and in which form. >> >> I think we should start by loosely discussing the various ideas >> on the wiki page. Feel free to also point out any missing ideas >> or remarks that would be useful there. >> >> So, what are your comments? >> >> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Future_EAPI/Version_syntax_changes >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Michał Górny >> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> > I also like the idea of moving the operator as it's more consistent > and opens new doors to other solutions. > > As for the use of operator & and |, they're quite good, but I'd prefer > the use of Gmail's style where expressions placed in () are processed > with AND, and expressions placed inside {} are processed with OR: > > dev-foo/bar[>=1.3&<1.5] dev-foo/bar(>=1.3 <1.5) > dev-foo/bar[>=1.3&<1.5&!=1.4.1] dev-foo/bar(>=1.3 <1.5 !=1.4.1) > dev-foo/bar[<1.1|>=1.5] dev-foo/bar{<1.1 >=1.5} > dev-foo/bar[=1.1*|=1.3*|>=1.5] dev-foo/bar{=1.1* =1.3* >=1.5} > > I find it more readable. The former looks too compressed. > Ewww, WTF should we use Google as a (bad) example?! And "bracketising" rather than explicit operators is bound to cause confusion and errors ...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
