On 11/06/2016 05:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > I've collected various ideas on operator changes on a wiki page [1]. > I've tried to stay open-minded and cover every possibility, even though > I doubt some of them would be even considered. > > ... > > So, what are your comments? >
I read through the whole thing, and... it's overwhelming. A lot of the later proposals would be affected by the first one, the reordering of >=app-foo/bar-x.y.z to app-foo/bar >= x.y.z Maybe it makes sense to discuss that first, since it impacts so many of the rest? In that proposal, the one problem mentioned is that the syntax would collide with the subslot dependency syntax. For example, right now, if I want to depend on SLOT=4 of app-foo/bar and I need my package to rebuild when app-foo/bar changes subslots, then I would use app-foo/bar:4= With the infix change, this becomes a problem if I add an "==" version operator on the end: app-foo/bar:4===4.1 If we're changing everything already, though, can't we adjust the syntax for the subslot operators? I didn't know that ":4=" was the syntax that we used to depend on both a slot and a subslot. My first impression is that it would make more sense to use ":=4", since that can be read as "slot equals 4", just like ":*" means "slot whatever". It's not a perfect translation, but it sounds better than ":4=", and ":=4" looks like a stronger version of ":4", which is accurate.
