Regarding assert() and assert_debug(). Where would you put the dir “sys”? Why not put the definitions in an os include dir? Is that due to dependencies you would not want (i.e. os would need console, or something like that)? Or that you dont feel like assert belongs in the os?
About the names: I think someone was mentioning that assert normally gets defined out if you define NDEBUG. Is that true? If that is the case, shouldnt we keep that paradigm? I know we discussed this a bit but I cant recall what we decided :-) Will > On Oct 26, 2015, at 5:36 PM, marko kiiskila <ma...@runtime.io> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 26, 2015, at 5:08 PM, Christopher Collins <ch...@runtime.io> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:35:12PM -0700, marko kiiskila wrote: >>> Hi, >> >> [...] >> >>> And 2nd (related) topic: >>> At the moment there is libs/console/full and libs/console/stub. >>> What kind of mechanism should we have for picking between >>> these two implementation? What I’d need is a way for a builder >>> of project to pick between these, and all eggs in the project >>> to have include the header file for the right implementation. >>> >>> But I also want to be able to specify within egg definition that >>> the egg will make calls to console_printf(). Egg itself does not >>> care which one of the implementations gets used. >>> >>> Is there a way to do this kind of thing yet? >> >> The newt tool supports the concept of "capabilities" which can address >> this requirement. > ... >> All that said, the capabilities feature isn't actually fully implemented >> yet; the above is just how I might expect it to work once it is done :). >> >> Here are a few more questions that I think need to be answered: >> >> * How does the "peripheral" egg include the appropriate console >> header files? Even if both console eggs have identically named >> header files, newt needs to arrange for the appropriate include >> directory to be passed to the compiler. >> >> * What is an easy way to switch between the debug and full >> implementations. The user should not need to modify the >> myproject.yml file to do this. Perhaps the "identities" feature >> can be used here. >> > > Thanks, this sounds like a thing that matches my requirement. > I’ll have to start filling in these blanks in newt tool then. > > I think I’ll treat a dependency that comes in a form of capability > requirement the same way as I’d treat normal dependency: > once an egg is found which implements the capability, it’s include > path is passed to compiler. > > I won’t address the identity thing with this work, but that sounds > useful. Depending on whether you’re building a debug version of your > project or not, you could pick whether you get console output.
