Rule-based preferences - format marker RFC, etc.

[Martin Pool]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Harald Meland
<harald.meland at usit.uio.no> wrote:
>> * a namespace - I've gone with 'for' for readability reasons
>
> This seems a little strange to me.  I thought the idea of introducing
> this namespace keyword was to have the keyword somehow describe *how*
> the rest of the section name goes about matching a subset of your
> tree.
>
> Are you saying that this "for" keyword is meant to match the behaviour
> of e.g. a shell-script for loop?  If so, the support for "RE:" you
> mentioned earlier seems a poor match (no pun intended) to this shell
> analogy.
>
> (BTW, given that we're going to have keywords anyway, wouldn't it make
> sense to separate the regular glob behavior of this "for" keyword from
> the extended regexp-match behaviour?)
>
> And, when you sometime in the future decide that you need to expand
> your keyword set, starting out with "for" seems very generic; if you
> e.g. decide that you want to allow users to specify their files by
> file-id, you add e.g. 'file-id' -- and then risk confusing users by
> having one match-mechanism-centered keyword and one "some kind of
> iteration, I guess" keyword.  How will users know that the "for"
> keyword doesn allow iteration over e.g. file-id prefixes?

I agree.

I guess you could make it 'for name *.py' but this seems to be getting
ahead of ourselves...

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>