On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 19 September 2012 14:01, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Ben de Groot <yng...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 19 September 2012 03:18, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> Readability is more important, and there I still don't buy the >>>>> argument that the new syntax is better, and that any gain would >>>>> outweigh the cost of changing. After all, the existing variables for >>>>> dependency specification won't disappear, so devs would have to >>>>> remember both. >>>> >>>> I agree it is a con, but is it a blocker? I mean basically any change >>>> proposed requires know the old way, and the new way..that is how >>>> changes work... >>> >>> Which is why changes need to have clear benefits that outweigh the >>> costs of change. In this case the benefits are purely cosmetic, so >>> they don't. Change for change' sake is not worth the effort. >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ben | yngwin >>> Gentoo developer >>> Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin >>> >> >> I'm sorry. Are you reading the same threads that I am? > > You've seen me participating in those, so obviously: yes.
So then you must have also read Brian's email detailing the metadata savings, and allowing the PM to parse fewer things (even with quantitative measurements!). Search your email for 'cold cache'. [snip] Looking at what you call cosmetic makes me think that you're collapsing "cosmetic and a useful change" down into "cosmetic" in order to disregard it.
