W dniu nie, 28.01.2018 o godzinie 11∶22 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``. > > > > This section defines one or more repository structure definitions > > > > using sequential integer keys. The definition keyed as ``0`` > > > > is the most preferred structure. The package manager should use > > > > the first structure format it recognizes as supported, and ignore any > > > > it does not recognize. If this section is not present, the package > > > > manager should behave as if only ``flat`` structure were supported. > > > > > > It is not at all clear from this how integer keys are ordered. The > > > paragraph only says that "0" is most preferred, but says nothing about > > > comparison of other numbers. > > > > > > For example, if there are keys "-1", "0", and "1" (these are > > > "sequential integer keys", right?), what is their order of preference? > > Please suggest a better wording. The idea was to use 0=, 1=, 2=... > > "... using non-negative integer keys. The definition with the > smallest key is the most preferred structure. The package manager > should ignore any formats it does not recognize." > > Ulrich
How about this then: | This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``. | This section defines one or more repository structure definitions | using non-negative sequential integer keys. The definition with | the ``0`` key is the most preferred structure. The package manager | should ignore any formats it does not recognize. If this section | is not present, the package manager should behave as if only ``flat`` | structure were specified. I don't want people to skip numbers, and I want to avoid confusion between 0/1 as initial number. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
