On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 03:57:59 +1100
Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 02/01/16 03:41, Michał Górny wrote:
> > ---
> >  eclass/scons-utils.eclass | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/eclass/scons-utils.eclass b/eclass/scons-utils.eclass
> > index a2a6884..e1b3a1b6 100644
> > --- a/eclass/scons-utils.eclass
> > +++ b/eclass/scons-utils.eclass
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
> > +# Copyright 1999-2015 Gentoo Foundation
> >  # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> >  # $Id$
> >  
> > @@ -17,19 +17,19 @@
> >  # EAPI=4
> >  #
> >  # src_configure() {
> > -# 	myesconsargs=(
> > +# 	MYSCONS=(
> >  # 		CC="$(tc-getCC)"
> >  # 		$(use_scons nls ENABLE_NLS)
> >  # 	)
> >  # }
> >  #
> >  # src_compile() {
> > -# 	escons
> > +# 	escons "${MYSCONS[@]}"
> >  # }
> >  #
> >  # src_install() {
> >  # 	# note: this can be DESTDIR, INSTALL_ROOT, ... depending on package
> > -# 	escons DESTDIR="${D}" install
> > +# 	escons "${MYSCONS[@]}" DESTDIR="${D}" install
> >  # }
> >  # @CODE
> >  
> >   
> 
> What is the benefit of MYSCONS vs myesconsargs? The latter seems to be
> more consistent with other eclasses (mycmakeargs, myqmakeargs, ...)

It's shorter and follows the convention of keeping global variables
uppercase.

Consistency with bad example set by one eclass is not a good argument.
In fact, cmake-utils sets a very bad example of enforcing declarative
model over function-oriented ebuilds which results in really absurd
src_configure() implementations.

  src_configure() {
    local mycmakeargs=(
      ...
    )
    cmake-utils_src_configure
  }

vs

  src_configure() {
    local myconf=(
      ...
    )
    ecmake "${myconf[@]}"
  }

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>