On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:22:55AM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> The trouble is actually achieving that in shell-based parsers where
> shell code cannot tell whether $CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL has been used in
> a condition.
Where comes the requirement that we shall keep the existing shell
based config parsers?
Remembering the CML2 war there were no serious objections about
shifting away from shell based parsers (but certainly a lot about the
alternative selected).
It is possible to replace Configure and menuconfig rather easy
and then see if a new xconfig showed up based on the new parsers.
This would allow us to do much more advanced semantic checks, and
give proper warnings to catch errors early.
The first versions should obviously not introduce new syntax, that
should evolve over time.
I dislike seeing arguments that this is not easy/possible in shell based
parsers. If the chosen technology does not fit the problem domain
then it's about time to shift technology.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
