-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 01:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 12/08/15 01:00 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:57:25 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
>> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 12/08/15 12:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>>>> 2 - is there a particular reasoning for the - in front
>>>>> of qt4 here? I only ask because it would seem that a
>>>>> single default-enable should suffice in lists like this
>>>>> to indicate a resolution path, no? That is, '^^ ( +flag1
>>>>> -flag2 -flag3 -flag4 )' to me seems like it would be the
>>>>> same as '^^ ( +flag1 flag2 flag3 flag4 )'
>>>>
>>>> If the user has both "qt4 qt5", then enabling qt5 alone
>>>> won't help to resolve "^^ ( qt5 qt4 )".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but the PM knows based on a particular REQUIRED_USE
>>> operator what it would need to do when a particular flag is
>>> set to default. Given '^^' is must-be-one-of, the +flag would
>>> be enabled and all the other flags would be disabled, right?
>>>
>>> Here's how I'd see it mapping out:
>>>
>>> || ( +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM only forces-on flag1 ^^ (
>>> +flag1 flag2 ... ) , PM forces-on flag1, forces-off all
>>> others ?? ( +flag2 flag2 ... ) , PM forces off all but flag1
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the following make sense though... thoughts?
>>>
>>> {,!}flag1? ( +flag2 ) , PM forces-on flag2 {,!}flag1? (
>>> +!flag2 ) , PM forces !flag2, meaning forces-off flag2
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just wondering if it's really necessary in terms of
>>> syntax to specify the flag-negation that the PM would need to
>>> do.
>
>
>> See my other email: neither + nor - are necessary :)
>
>
>
>
> I'd disagree on that -- technically they aren't necessary, but
> the whole reason why these new operators were added in the first
> place was so that it's a lot easier for developers to fill in
> REQUIRED_USE and get the logic right. Mapping out a ^^ ( flag1
> flag2 flag3 flag4 ) into all of its permissible flag-a? ( flagb
> !flagc !flagd ) variants is a royal pain. Plus there's
> readability/understandability to consider here.
>
err, flaga? ( !flagb !flagc !flagd ) i mean..
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLfSMACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3jQQD7B9BCbF/3qfE9sQCygNpxKhlo
svefcKCbomBA6fTg6bsA/0QLz/Qw8nL4d7P9I4fruwgyU1vZb/VIBmXynwbAij2L
=NW7S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
