Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > >> On Saturday 14 June 2008 21:20, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: >>> $ egrep _ARPING include/autoconf.h >>> #define CONFIG_ARPING 1 >>> #define ENABLE_ARPING 1 >>> #define USE_ARPING(...) __VA_ARGS__ >>> #define SKIP_ARPING(...) >>> #define CONFIG_FEATURE_UDHCPC_ARPING 1 >>> #define ENABLE_FEATURE_UDHCPC_ARPING 1 >>> #define USE_FEATURE_UDHCPC_ARPING(...) __VA_ARGS__ >>> #define SKIP_FEATURE_UDHCPC_ARPING(...) >>> >>> $ egrep _MMU applets/usage.c >>> ./applets/usage.c:#define BB_MMU 0 >>> ./applets/usage.c:#define USE_FOR_MMU(...) >>> ./applets/usage.c:#define BB_MMU 1 >>> ./applets/usage.c:#define USE_FOR_MMU(...) __VA_ARGS__ >>> >>> For consistancy, I would have expected something similar to this instead: >>> #define USE_BB_MMU(...) __VA_ARGS__ >>> #define SKIP_BB_MMU(...) >> The point is, SKIP_xxx(foo) is misnamed. It doesn't skip anything. >> It includes foo if xxx is not selected. >> BTW, USE_ARPING(foo) is misnamed *too*. It's not "using arping", >> it's "using foo if arping [is selected]". USE_IF_ARPING would be >> more readable. > > Yes, you have a point. > USE_IF_FEATURE_X and SKIP_IF_FEATURE_X would be better.
assume that: skip = ! use that means you can write: USE_IF_FEATURE(!x) that would reduce the number of macros by one (type). ntl: your point is correct, we have way to many macros someone should write down how the names (USE,ENABLE,DISABLE) are used. Anything else will lead to a temporay cleanup only. re, wh > >> For MMU, I decided to try to make up better names and see how they will >> stick. > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox