Re: The package/inherit trap

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:

> Hi!
>
> Maxim Cournoyer 写道：
>> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>>> It is not clear for me why you choose one over the other.  From my
>>> current understanding, I would be tempted to always use
>>> 'package/inherit' and never plain 'inherit'.
>>
>> I also got confused by that in the past;
>
> Same.  I think it's a rite of passage.  A questionable one.
>
>> The way I process it internally now is this:
>>
>> If the inheritance is for *same-source/same-version* variants of a
>> package, they should use package/inherit, as any security issues
>> found
>> in the parent package should also be applied to that package (since
>> they
>> use the same source).  Otherwise, plain 'inherit' should be used
>> (e.g. for newer version variants).
>
> That about jives with my intuition.
>
> Judging by the (IMO) universal confusion this causes, it is (IMO)
> spectacularly poorly-named.  A docstring doesn't fix that.
>
> Could we rename it to something like ‘package+replacements/inherit’?
> To me, that captures the spirit, without being overly longer.

That'd be better, I think.  The more verbose name at least wouldn't let
one think, 'oh, some questionable syntax sugar for the lazy', like I did
in the past :-).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim