On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Scott Wood [mailto:[email protected]] >> If sequential operations within a tree are supported, I'm not sure > that there's >> any remaining need for separate top-level trees -- you could express > the same >> thing as top-level property/node redefinitions. > > I agree, *IF* sequential operations are supported. > But then you have a sequential programming language, not a structured > data > description. I think this is a bad idea.
Indeed. We've got lots of sequential programming languages. I don't want us to create for ourselves a new (and poorly implemented) language. >> I'd rather make them actually behave like immediate commands, though. > > But the question is, what is the semantics of the 'command language' > (where ordering matters) > from the 'structure language' (where ordering is unimportant). My > suggestion is to cleanly separate > these two. The only ordering that is defined is between sequential > trees. Within a sequential tree, > only things which have the same meaning in any ordering of sub-nodes and > properties should be allowed. Yes, I think I agree with this. The only ordering that matters is the ordering of top level node redefinition blocks. >> > Which brings up the question 'undeletion question'. Can you do: >> > >> > d-label: delete(bar); >> > delete(&d-label); >> >> I'd say no -- delete operates on data, not commands. > > This implies that data and commands are different. And commands have to > be ordered, which means that you have > to keep the order of everything under a node, which chucks alot of the > beauty of device trees, IMHO. Right, well said. I think the right thing to do is to avoid the concept of commands entirely from the tree. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
