On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an > associated category atoms? If I use the content of man 5 ebuild as a guide, I'd say no, sets can't be atoms. Because sets can't have "base name" and "version" sub components. sets can't have range specifiers. Sets /are/ still dependency specifications, in that reading, just like || ( ) groups are dependency specifications, and lists of atoms are dependency specifications. Hence, this is an example of in my mind why "atom" is a *better* descriptor than "dependency specification" Because it rules out sets and all the other shenanigans.
pgpqtCEMgbd16.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
