[Greg Banks]
> Ok, we need to be a little bit careful about semantics here, or
> there is going to be issues converting the existing corpus.
Agreed.
> Currently the "if" syntax and dependencies are not the same thing;
> the "if" condition is purely a visibility limit, and deps are both
> value
[Kai Henningsen]
> Incidentally, wouldn't it make sense to use "dep_if" instead of "if_dep"?
Yes, probably. I'll go ahead and change it in my tree, unless anyone
objects violently.
Peter
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired o
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 07:27:50PM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> I'm not optimistic that a switch to a new language or even a new
> parser for the old language will ever happen.
I asked Linus specifically about the replacement of the shell based parsers.
The answer were quite simple:
- It should be c
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
> If you wanted to add the ability to express this in CML1, you would need
> a completely different syntax for choices, say something like this:
>
> menuchoice next_comment
> comment 'Kernel page size'
> choiceitem '4KB' CONFIG_IA64_PAGE_SIZE_4K
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> My main goal is to make it easier to write Config.in files, by making
> the syntax and semantics less awkward. [...]
>
> * The current 'if' statement is really ugly and unintuitive,[...]
Agreed.
> * Current 'if' semantics are hard to get right in many common cases.[.
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Kai Germaschewski]
> > I didn't look into like choice statements, but I'd hope it's
> > possible to add dependencies to them, too, for consistency.
>
> I agree. Actually, if we're changing 'choice' anyway, it should be
> redesigned. Status quo takes three arguments:
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
> Unlike you, I'm not optimistic that a switch to a new language or even a new
> parser for the old language will ever happen.
It would be nice if I could get it into 2.6, but it's not a problem if it
has to wait. I'm currently busy getting menuconfig
Kai Germaschewski wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> > The more I think about it, the more I think the default if_dep should
> > do the m-restricting thing. That way:
> >
> > dep_bool FOO1 BAR BAZ
> > dep_mbool FOO2 BAR BAZ
> > dep_tristate FOO3 BAR BAZ
> >
> > is
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> The problem here is one should consider, how all these little changes will
> help to solve the big problems. Do they allow to more easily fix the big
> problems or have these changes to be dumped again?
I believe fixing the existing rules within the existing syntax is an
G'day,
gcml2 is (among other things) a Linux kconfig language syntax
checker. Version 0.7 is available at
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=18813&release_id=106023
and
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~gnb/gcml2/download.html
There's also an online summary of the warnings and
10 matches
Mail list logo
