[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707211513170.6770@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:15:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use menuconfig objects - Fusion
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jul 21 2007 15:05, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> +menuconfig FUSION
> >...
> >> +if FUSION
> >>
> >> config FUSION_SPI
> >...
> >> +endif # FUSION
> >
> > i just *know* i'm going to regret asking this, but is there a
> >compelling reason why the internal contents of a "menuconfig FUBAR"
> >needs to still be surrounded by a "if FUBAR" condition?
>
> Note that if/endif actually translates to a "depends on" for every
> contained object. I prefer the reduced clutter [if/endif] over
> having explicit depends on on every object, since it is redundant.
oh, i absolutely agree with you there.
> >wouldn't it be philosophically cleaner if the internals of a
> >menuconfig structure *automatically* depended on selection of the
> >menuconfig and the "if" part was implicit?
>
> "menuconfig" is not a start marker like "menu" was. Hence it has no
> "stop" marker either. We would need a new object type for that.
http://www.linuxrocket.net/index.cgi?a=MailArchiver&ma=ShowMail&Id=525787
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists