[Exherbo-dev] Alternatives descriptions

Bo Ørsted Andresen zlin at exherbo.org
Tue Sep 26 15:26:44 UTC 2017


On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Benedikt Morbach 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.

Latest version is now on Gerrit. Someone please test and comment.

https://galileo.mailstation.de/gerrit/#/c/10144
https://galileo.mailstation.de/gerrit/#/c/10145
https://galileo.mailstation.de/gerrit/#/c/10146

--
Bo Ørsted Andresen



More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list