On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 09:43:06AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I vote against anything similar to the C preprocessor.
>
> The advantage of the current language that's been floated here is that
> its 'execution' elements offer a far more expressive macro generation
> capability than the cpp. cpp doesn't have for loops. There's no way
> to convert a number to hex in cpp.
But those can be done in expressions which the macros can generate.
It's just a matter of implementing the right operators and builtin
functions.
> Complicated if statements aren't
> possible. And so on. m4 allows these things, but imposes
> restrictions that make it awkward to use in this context, so it is out
> (despite my comments yesterday, and the fact I use it to genreate the
> html for my resume). There's really no other widely available
> preprocessor that would be useful here.
>
> Then again, I'm not sure that I completely buy into the mixing data
> definitions and execution elements being confusing. We do that right
> now in every C program you write with global variables... The problem
> here is that we're inventing a scripting language to generate data
> structures, much like web pages are generated in some scripting
> languages by haing the output be html. There's little confusion
> there (and no, I'm not suggesting we use one of them :-).
Hrm, yes. And I really dislike the idea of creating yet-another
scripting language just for our purposes. It may be simple now, but I
greatly fear if we start down this path it will grow to become a
Turing-complete monstrosity.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
