On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grant
> Likely
>> reworked to use nodes:
>> foo {
>> bar-label: bar {
>> prop = 2;
>> delete(bar); // should be illegal
>> };
>> };
>
> Um, my original intent was:
> foo {
> bar-label: bar {
> prop = 2;
> };
> delete(bar); // should be illegal
> };
Ah, yes. And you are right, that should be illegal.
> So, is it true that a tree which is overlayed on another tree can be
> independently verified to
> be independent of internal ordering? This would be nice if so.
Yes, I think that is a valid statement, with the assumption that label
references at the top level are first resolved.
>> Not sure I follow. It certainly isn't be valid to apply a label to a
>> command like delete().
>
> But the best thing of the above is that there is no longer a distinction
> between commands and data!
> delete is just a tag which gets interpreted during 'reduction' or 'overlay'.
>
> For instance, deleting a subnode could be:
>
> foo {
> bar {
> delete;
> }
> }
>
> I guess this ends up conflicting with a property named 'delete' though.
Right. It should be something syntactically distinct.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
