On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Christoph Egger wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Andreas Beck wrote:
> > > How about LDDK (http://www.llp.fu-berlin.de/pool/software/dutil/) for a
> > > beginning?
> >
> > If the _L_ there means _L_inux, then please don't, except for maybe
> > borrowing ideas.
>
> Yes. LDDK = Linux Driver Development Kit.
>
> > I want KGI/KGIcon to stay absolutely portable.
>
> Sure. I thought, to use the Driver Development Language (DDL) to write
> KGI-drivers. I wanna say, modifying the DDL-Compiler to create KGI-drivers
> instead of Linux-Drivers should be much less work than developing that system
> from the beginning...
> Maybe that some modifications on the DDL itself may be necessary, but as I
> said - it is tiny work compared developing that from the beginning.
>
> That's why, I mentioned the LDDK project.
I'll have a look at LDDK for ideas. But developping a "new" language is
not such a huge task -- it's just very tricky to define a useful and
well-defined language. (Do not misunderstand me: I'd like more a useful
and dedicated preprocessor or C generator than a fully integrated
driver-specific language that does everything from init to shutdown.)
Rodolphe
