Re: config(5) break down

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:18 PM, David Holland
<dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:14:51AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>  > > ?> > (Besides, it's not necessarily as flat as all that, either.)
>  > > ?>
>  > > ?> It's necessary to be flat to be modular.
>  > >
>  > > Mm... not strictly. That's only true when there are diamonds in the
>  > > dependency graph; otherwise, declaring B inside A just indicates that
>  > > B depends on A. Consider the following hackup of files.ufs:
>  >
>  > There're diamonds (for example, ppp-deflate depends on ppp and zlib).
>
> Sure. But mostly there aren't.

% grep ':.*,' sys/conf/files | wc -l
        86

>  > In this plan, what *.kmod will be generated?
>
> The ones declared? Or one big one, or one per source file, or whatever
> the blazes you want, actually...

And how dependencies are represented?

> Um. I know perfectly well that config currently uses braces for
> something else. That's irrelevant. There's no need to use braces for
> grouping; it just happens to be readily comprehensible to passersby.
> There's an infinite number of possible other grouping symbols that can
> be used, ranging from << >> to (! !) or even things like *( )*.
> Furthermore, the existing use of braces can just as easily be changed
> to something else if that seems desirable.

I don't like unnecessary changes.

> There's a reason I said "syntax like the above" and "if we can all
> agree on what it should be". That wasn't a concrete proposal, it
> wasn't meant to be a concrete proposal, no concrete proposal is
> complete without an analysis of whether the grammar remains
> unambiguous, and nitpicking it on those grounds is futile.
>
> You seem to be completely missing the point.

So you're objecting my concrete proposal with your not-concrete
proposal.  All you've said is "I don't like small files".  If you have
a concrete proposal, please post it as another thread.

Masao