AllenJB wrote: > lx...@sabayonlinux.org wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alex Legler <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> For usability's sake, please don't do this. I can imagine users getting >>> confused over the different meanings of the @ sign. >>> > Personally I think the PHP namespace syntax issue is a very good > analogy. There's an established syntax, even if it's not a written > standard, already used in a very similar situation, and that should be > taken into account. > Why can't we just use the cleanest syntax, irrespective of what external projects do? Surely that's the point of standing back and facilitating their use of the tree; so that we can decide what and *how* would be useful for all Gentoo users. > You appear to be the only one who's arguing against that syntax. As a > user, I have to agree that using @ for multiple purposes, even if it > can't be applied to the same purposes in different locations, is > potentially confusing, even if not just plain silly. > > As a side note, I think I've read somewhere that it may in the future be > possible to specify sets in package.* (which I assume would be done > using the @set-name syntax), but can't remember where off-hand. This may > have just been a suggestion, but if it ever is implemented, it would > surely add to the confusion. > I don't see the ambiguity; it's perfectly unambiguous to a lexer, and immediately apparent to a user too. If it's got an @ at the beginning, it's a set name. If an atom has an @ after the package name (and possibly version etc) it means "from that overlay."
Note that I think we can use the syntax elsewhere, without ambiguity. Surely it would be best simply to ask end-users which of a few variants they'd find easiest to work with? Or indeed for their suggestions; after all, they spend a lot more time engaging with the cli/config files than we do. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
