oops, didn't reply to the list. re-sending On Sat, 2012-09-22 at 19:19 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:05:41 -0700 > So, I think you just don't like it and are inventing disadvantages > without even caring enough to consider them before writing. > Oh, I considered it for the past 4 hours before responding. Got nothing in favour of it. The current atom format and syntax in CONSISTENT throughout the configs, and PM code. This proposal would split that in two, configs, ebuilds one format, everything else the old. quote " Mine is easily incorporated into the PM; it is just a change in a single place splitting and parsing the tokens. " That is unless you also change all the code to the new format and a new data type. I have written *DEPEND processing code (porthole's grahical Dependencies view) and worked on code in portage, pkgcore, gentoolkit, gpytage,... all working with the current atom syntax. This proposed change would require all those tools and more to be refactored too! So, to throw your words back at you: This proposal was submitted ... "without even caring enough to consider them before writing." enough said. -- Brian Dolbec