[Greg Banks]
> Have you assessed the impact of making the visibility guard
> (CONFIG_HOTLPLUG in this example) also a value limit for the symbols
> defined in the source'd file?
Not an issue, as CONFIG_HOTPLUG is a bool, and I see no conceivable
reason it should become a tristate.
But yes, when
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Greg Banks]
> > There are other ways to use "if" statements not covered by these two
> > cases, for example a couple of minutes of manual scanning reveals...
> >
> > int ' default tagged command queue depth' CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX_DEFAULT_TAGS 8
> > if [ "$CONFIG_SCSI
[Greg Banks]
> There are other ways to use "if" statements not covered by these two
> cases, for example a couple of minutes of manual scanning reveals...
>
> int ' default tagged command queue depth' CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX_DEFAULT_TAGS 8
> if [ "$CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C8XX_DEFAULT_TAGS" = "0" ]; th
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> There are lots of instances of things like
>
> if [ "$CONFIG_FOO" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_FOO" = "m" ]; then
> dep_tristate 'Bar' CONFIG_BAR $CONFIG_FOO
> ...
> fi
>
> which can be replaced by
>
> dep_if CONFIG_FOO
> tristate 'Bar' CONFIG_BAR
> ..
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
>
> > > Why do you want to do the parser/syntax switch separately? Why do you want
> > > to write and test a parser just to be throw it away again?
> >
> > So that the changes have some chance of getting past Linus.
>
> Sor
[I wrote]
> > I guess I wasn't quite clear: my current implementation is both
> > visibility + value, not visibility only (like current if [ ]) or
> > value only (like an earlier discussion of dep_if).
[Greg Banks]
> Aha. I think you're going to be arguing uphill to get it in.
Could be. Per
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
> > Why do you want to do the parser/syntax switch separately? Why do you want
> > to write and test a parser just to be throw it away again?
>
> So that the changes have some chance of getting past Linus.
Sorry, but that's a dumb reason. Linus is quit
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> Why do you want to do the parser/syntax switch separately? Why do you want
> to write and test a parser just to be throw it away again?
So that the changes have some chance of getting past Linus.
> I already have all of this and I know what work and problems this would
>
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> > > > I think a better solution would be to provide separate "if"like
> > > > statements,[...]
> > >
> > > I think that is overengineering.
>
> [Greg Banks]
> > Sure. I was just saying that if we want a conditional statement
> > with combined value+visibility semantic
