On 03/12/12 11:57, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 March 2012 22:37, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Ebuilds *are* bash. There isn't ever going to be a PMS labeled >> xml format that is known as ebuilds... that's just pragmatic reality >> since such a beast is clearly a seperate format (thus trying to call >> it an 'ebuild' is dumb, confusing, and counter productive). > > > I think this notion should be concluded before we continue debating as > to how best to implement EAPI declarations. > > Is it really so fixed that ".ebuild" will only ever be bash ? > > If thats the case, then G55 ( or something similar ) is practically > guaranteed as soon as we want something non-bash. > > > > > -- > Kent > > perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, > 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" >
I imagine that POSIX Shell is a possibility, although strict compliance would mean abandoning a few extensions like the local keyword that are probably rather useful in eclasses. To make XML a viable substitute for bash, you will need to implement a turing complete language in XML, which should probably preclude its use in ebuilds. You would likely have better luck with a functional programming language, although you are more than welcome to demonstrate otherwise.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
