> > Things get trickier when we want to extend this to macros or > functions. The only problem I have with your patch at present is that > I'd prefer not to implement a constant defining syntax, only to have > it obsoleted by whatever we do for macros or functions.
Exactly. > So, there are basically two approaches to macro or function support. > > A) Functions > B) Macros > B1) Use cpp itself > B2) Make our own preprocessor, isomorphic to cpp To be thorough, there has been one other macro proposal: Use m4. Suggesting that, however, has had the entertaining side effect of causing internet-wide vomiting. > Our current impasse is roughly that Jon prefers approach (A), whereas > I prefer (B1) on balance. (B1) would obsolete your suggested define > syntax. (A) and (B2) could both potentially subsume it, instead. Right. jdl _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
