>>>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > [...] In that proposal, the one problem mentioned is that the syntax > would collide with the subslot dependency syntax. For example, right > now, if I want to depend on SLOT=4 of app-foo/bar and I need my > package to rebuild when app-foo/bar changes subslots, then I would > use
> app-foo/bar:4=
> With the infix change, this becomes a problem if I add an "=="
> version operator on the end:
> app-foo/bar:4===4.1
> If we're changing everything already, though, can't we adjust the
> syntax for the subslot operators? I didn't know that ":4=" was the
> syntax that we used to depend on both a slot and a subslot. My first
> impression is that it would make more sense to use ":=4", since that
> can be read as "slot equals 4", just like ":*" means "slot
> whatever". It's not a perfect translation, but it sounds better than
> ":4=", and ":=4" looks like a stronger version of ":4", which is
> accurate.
This wouldn't completely solve it, because we also have a := slot
operator. So =app-foo/bar-4.1:= would become app-foo/bar:==4.1
(or app-foo/bar:===4.1 if we also change = to ==) in the new syntax.
Brackets would help, or some new separator. Pick your poison:
app-foo/bar:=(=4.1)
app-foo/bar:=[=4.1]
app-foo/bar:={=4.1}
app-foo/bar:=::=4.1
app-foo/bar:=;=4.1
app-foo/bar:=@=4.1
app-foo/bar:=#=4.1
app-foo/bar:=☺=4.1
Ulrich
pgpG_oHQPSa5k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
