[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: config(5) break down
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:46:10PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > ?> > ?> 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
And? I don't understand your point. There are a lot more than 86
entities in sys/conf/files.
> > ?> 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?
In files.*? In the example I wrote before, either explicitly or by
containment. If you mean in the modules themselves, that seems like a
> > 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.
And I don't like making a mess in order to avoid "unnecessary"
changes. Do it right, then it won't have to be done again next year.
> > 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.
I've objected to your "concrete" proposal, which wasn't very concrete,
on the grounds that I don't see any advantages to exploding files.*
into a million tiny pieces. I am trying to suggest alternate
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |