From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C440B1381F3 for ; Sat, 11 May 2013 16:41:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2067E0848; Sat, 11 May 2013 16:41:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B438E0837 for ; Sat, 11 May 2013 16:41:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sera-20.lan (247-123.62-188.cust.bluewin.ch [188.62.123.247]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: sera) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5D1A33DBE6 for ; Sat, 11 May 2013 16:41:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 18:41:33 +0200 From: Ralph Sennhauser To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH FIXED] Introduce edefault() as a friendly default sub-phase wrapper. Message-ID: <20130511184133.78e4e6cd@sera-20.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <1367440974-25521-1-git-send-email-mgorny@gentoo.org> <1368264639-6738-1-git-send-email-mgorny@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 608f1b92-7e37-4e06-8423-ecd18e2a565e X-Archives-Hash: 60f9888f2d545cb1f175f40825bafcb3 On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:51:39 -0400 Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > wrote: > > Fixed naming the proper default sub-phase and declaring 'edefault' > > in python_prepare_all(). > > --- >=20 > I think I prefer to explicitly name the function I want to call, so I > don't really see any great benefit here. I'm not strongly opposed to > it, but I don't see myself using it either. Same here for the reason you mention below. Long term I expect it to be more of a hassle than typing a few additional letters now. > Also, how would this interact with other eclasses which may define a > similar "edefault" function? Packages using distutils-r1 don't often > utilize other phase-happy eclasses, but I'm sure it will happen > eventually. >=20