On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:21:34 +0800
> konsolebox wrote:
>
>> Well that's just it: ease of use and simplicity vs. portability with
>> possible new parameter types in the future; your pick. I'll
>> personally go for the former this time.
>>
>> Al
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 01:21:34 +0800
konsolebox wrote:
> Well that's just it: ease of use and simplicity vs. portability with
> possible new parameter types in the future; your pick. I'll
> personally go for the former this time.
>
> Also, what kind of added type of parameters would you expect tha
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:53:51 +0800
> konsolebox wrote:
>
>> I got similar idea here, but my version is that you don't have to use
>> u: or v:
>
> The entire point of defining it as a prefix-space was to avoid ambiguity,
> and leave plenty of r
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:53:51 +0800
konsolebox wrote:
> I got similar idea here, but my version is that you don't have to use
> u: or v:
The entire point of defining it as a prefix-space was to avoid ambiguity,
and leave plenty of room for other such selector prefixes.
Relying on properties like
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> orrr we could do away with punctuation abuse and make "[]" be a
> "Parameter space"
>
>
>dev-foo/bar[u:foo,v:>=3]
I got similar idea here, but my version is that you don't have to use
u: or v:. When I was looking for the feature th
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:53:40 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> dev-foo/bar[>=3][foo]# version + USE
I kinda find this asking for problems with visual ambiguity.
Use different grouping symbols or supercede the USE syntax entirely.
dev-foo/bar[foo]#(>=3)
Or something. I'm also suggesting
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> Following my earlier threads, I'd like to propose a first complete
> solution for new version restrictions for package dependencies. I
> honestly doubt it's going to be approved since it's a major change.
> Nevertheless, I
Hello, everyone.
Following my earlier threads, I'd like to propose a first complete
solution for new version restrictions for package dependencies. I
honestly doubt it's going to be approved since it's a major change.
Nevertheless, I think it's an interesting topic for consideration.
What is incl
