"hidden" variants?

[Clemens Lang]

----- On 8 Mar, 2015, at 19:39, René J.V. Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com wrote:

> Can a port have variants that it doesn't "advertise"? In other words, what
> happens if a portfile uses `variant_isset` to check whether or not a variant
> has been selected, but doesn't contain (or contains a commented-out)
> declaration for that variant?

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea, especially since the
recorded chosen variants in the registry might behave unexpectedly.


> Context: the +exclusive variant of my co-installable qt4-mac port version. I'm
> quite confident by now that it is no longer required, but see no point in
> making it impossible to use just yet.

Just edit the description and make it clean it shouldn't be used? I see no
reason to use any of the trickery you described above.

-- 
Clemens Lang