[Rpm-ecosystem] Rich deps syntax finalization

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 25.8.2015 v 17:16 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> On 08/25/2015 02:50 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 25.8.2015 v 14:11 Florian Festi napsal(a):
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have been visiting Michael Schröder discussing the syntax for the
>>> rich deps [1]. There are still a few issues we like to get some
>>> input from the wider community:
>>>
>>> IF Operator =========== We concluded that the most important
>>> question was what to do with the if operator. There are two basic
>>> variants that can both be used with different symbols: forward and
>>> backward [2].
>>>
>>> Forward: Requires: (langsupport-es ? foo-lang-es) Requires:
>>> (langsupport-es ?? foo-lang-es) Requires: (langsupport-es then
>>> foo-lang-es) Requires: (langsupport-es THEN foo-lang-es) Requires:
>>> (langsupport-es -> foo-lang-es) Backward: Requires: (foo-lang-es if
>>> langsupport-es) Requires: (foo-lang-es IF langsupport-es) Requires:
>>> (foo-lang-es <- langsupport-es)
>>>
>>> With ELSE operand: Forward: Requires: (pkgB ? pkgA : pkgC) 
>>> Requires: (pkgB ?? pkgA !! pkgC) Requires: (pkgB then pkgA else
>>> pkgC) Requires: (pkgB THEN pkgA ELSE pkgC) Backward: Requires:
>>> (pkgA if pkgB else pkgC) Requires: (pkgA IF pkgB ELSE pkgC)
>>>
>>> Semantics for all examples is: foo-lang-es/pkgA is needed if 
>>> langsupport-es/pkgB is installed. pkgC is required instead if 
>>> langsupport-es/pkgB is not installed.
>>>
>>> After a lengthy discussion we are pretty confident that the Python
>>> style (. IF . [ELSE .]) is the best choice. It gives a clear hint
>>> which direction the operator works and is more familiar than the
>>> implication arrows and THEN.
>> Do I understand it correctly, that the direction is different when
>> you are using ELSE and without ELSE? E.g. for this case:
>>
>> Requires: (foo-lang-es if langsupport-es)
>>
>>
>> I read it as "install foo-lang-es in case langsupport-es is
>> installed". This is quite common construct, but I really don't
>> understand the else case.
>> Could you please read it for me? Especially the ternary operator 
>> version, it looks like ternary operator but I am afraid it is not.
>
> Requires: (foo-lang-es if langsupport-es else foo-lang-generic)
> Requires: (langsupport-es ? foo-lang-es : foo-lang-generic)
>
> These two variants are equivalent. Only the first two operands have
> switched places in both the binary and the ternary version.

The swapped order worries me. I have yet to see any language which
supports the "[else .]" part of if condition in the backward order.

>
>> Wouldn't it be better to have just the ternary operator syntax?
> Nah. I guess most cases will just use the binary operator case. Note
> that the above are equivalent to
>
> Requires: (foo-lang-es if langsupport-es)
> Requires: (foo-lang-generic or langsupport-es)

And that these two lines above are supposed to be better readable then
this oneliner?

Requires: (langsupport-es ? foo-lang-es : foo-lang-generic)


I might be slower, but I was starring at that two lines for a while,
prior I realized that that two lines are equivalent to that one indeed.
Moreover, one would expect that the foo-lang-generic will be always
installed, since it should be evaluated first in case short-circuit
evaluation.

Now reading through the rest of discussion, I understand that there is
AND between these two lines and the short-cicruit evaluation makes no
sense, but

1) It is not documented and not obvious on first look
2) Who reads documentation anyway :)


Vít