Patrick Lauer wrote: > Calling EAPI is ... well ... I can't even think of a place to start to > explain > how wrong it is. How on earth are you going to parse an eclass that supports > multiple EAPIs where one EAPI were to support features of bash 4? > The only way to do it would be to force bash 4 on all lower EAPIs, or make > per-EAPI eclasses, or forbid use of new bash features in eclasses. > All horrible ways to avoid fixing the problem.
I find restricting the eclass to Bash 3 is a natural, maintainable approach to this. How would "fixing he problem" work from your perspective? > All workaroundable by just > accepting things as they are. What do you mean by "accepting things as they are"? You have been talking of "accepting reality" repeatedly and I'm left wondering what you actually mean by that. I especially fail to see who is trying to conceal(?) reality and reality about what. Sebastian
