On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:57:38 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: [...] > > [...] > > > > > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse > > > > > > > > > > > > I really don't like the reordering thing. Even the > > > > > > restricted syntax does not fix the issue with '^^ ( a b ) > > > > > > b? ( a )' already mentioned here. It'd be much better and > > > > > > simpler for the spec just to assign a fixed value and use > > > > > > the solving rules with those. > > > > > > > > > > You're not going to convince me by providing examples that are > > > > > utterly broken by design and meaningless ;-). > > > > > > > > Well... if it's so obvious that the example is broken by design > > > > that you don't even bother to explain why, I assume you have an > > > > algorithm for that. Where is the code ? What are the numbers ? > > > > How many ebuilds might fail after reordering ? How can this be > > > > improved ? > > > > > > Are you arguing for the sake of arguing here? I just presumed that > > > this example is so obviously broken there is no point wasting any > > > more time on it. The code of nsolve clearly detects that, so I > > > don't really understand what you're trying to prove here. > > > > Those are real questions. You should take breath, think a bit about > > it, and try to run the 2 possible orderings of the ^^ through > > nsolve or even solve.py. They both are very happy (and are right to > > be) with the above ordering. You might want to think a bit more > > about what is the relation between this broken 10 chars example and > > the 10 lines python targets one below. > > > > You should also realize that all the above questions have already > > been answered in length if you do as I suggest. > > No. I have already spent too much time on this. We're already long > past all useful use cases, and now I feel like you're going to argue > to death just to find a perfect algorithm that supports every absurd > construct anyone can even write, if only to figure out the construct > is completely useless.
I'm not going to argue to death. It's already proven reordering is broken. > If you want to play with it more, then please by all means do so. There is nothing to do for reordering. It's broken by design. > However, do not expect me to waste any more of my time on it. I've > done my part, the code works for all reasonable use cases and solves > all the problems I needed solving. If you want more, then it's your > job to do it and solve the resulting issues. Like... writing code handling all the cases and describing how it works ? We're past that. The only thing we're not past is that you fail to understand it and attempt to block it. Alexis.
