[Exherbo-dev] Alternatives descriptions

Benedikt Morbach moben at exherbo.org
Tue Sep 26 08:46:35 UTC 2017


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Quentin Glidic <sardemff7 at exherbo.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 9/20/17 7:02 PM, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> [snip]
>> I'd like to get more comments on whether to break stuff to get wider
>> adoption
>> or make it opt in at the risk of noone using it.. ;)
> I vote to break the existing function too. With two possible tweaks:
> - we could make a new function and die-deprecate the old one altogether, to
> avoid possible misuse to make it pass for some weird reason

I don't think that's needed.
The old alternatives_for checks that it got 3+2*n arguments and the
new one will check for 4+2*n arguments, so neither would be able to
run with the arguments that were intended for the other one.

> - we could add a check that the description has a space in it (as they
> should always be at least two or three words to be meaningful, IMHO)

Good idea, avoids useless descriptions and teaches people that try to
add them what the intended use of the field is.

More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list