[Peter Samuelson] > > !y == n > > !m == n > > !n == y
[Roman Zippel] > I would define !m as m, e.g. it would allow > > dep_tristate "" CONFIG_OLD !$CONFIG_NEW > dep_tristate "" CONFIG_NEW !$CONFIG_OLD You know, that never even occurred to me. Your scheme is not strictly "logical", but it is much more practical, since it is perfect for expressing a relatively common (and currently awkward) case. I'm convinced. Now we have !y == n !m == m (significant for dep_tristate and dep_mbool) !n == n BTW, does anyone have a problem with my proposal (for 2.5, not necessarily 2.4) for '/dep_/s/ \$CONFIG/ CONFIG/g' ? That is, -dep_tristate "" CONFIG_FOO_X CONFIG_FOO CONFIG_BAR !CONFIG_BAZ +dep_tristate "" CONFIG_FOO_X $CONFIG_FOO $CONFIG_BAR !$CONFIG_BAZ Advantages: - the config files are more readable, especially when using "!" - can support the old syntax with no extra code and most importantly - resolves the parsing difficulty with detecting an undefined value in dep_* statements. Currently the undefined value is documented as "ignored, but try to avoid the situation". which leads to - allows us to drop all those 'define_bool CONFIG_FOO n' statements whose main purpose was to avoid the empty value Eh? I posted a patch earlier; it was trivial, despite having a syntax error in Configure (deleted a 'while...do', forgot the 'done') which only proves that I don't test stuff very rigorously. Menuconfig actually shrunk, due to factoring. If and when I get my head around xconfig, we'll see how ugly this stuff does or doesn't get, but then again, if xconfig were made uglier, would anyone notice? Peter ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ kbuild-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
