Subject: Re: Dependency pattern syntax
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
Date: 05/30/2006 19:05:25
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:53:08AM +0200, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> The reasons for this are many fold:
> (a) The current syntax and implementation is ridicilous complex and the
> implementation has a number of documented insanities. E.g. foo<2>3
> doesn't really give what one would expect.
What would you expect?
Both smaller than 2 and bigger than 3 (which is what I'd expect)
is not possible :)
AFAIK, foo>2<3 is ok.