Benjamin Reed wrote:Yes, I vote for a solution in Perl as well, yet I still think that the syntax is simply bad. Bad as in too complicated for the common or novice packager to understand. Maybe we could find a syntax that is based upon a flow thought and not based upon an expression how the underlying parser can best handle it.
Daniel Macks wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:05:54PM -0500, Daniel Macks wrote:
The simpler version of the idea is just a simple string equality test:
Depends: (%type_perl_version 5.8.1) thing-pm
Since you can have carriage returns in depends and stuff now (at least I think you can) you could do:
Depends: << #if PERL_VERSION = 5.8.1 thing-pm, #endif #ifdef X11 foo, #else foo-nox, #endif bar <<
It's still not pretty, but it at least lets people bootstrap off a lot of existing domain knowledge of the C preprocessor. And we wouldn't even have to write anything new, we just have to call cpp with the right -D's for everything fink "provides" and everything is done for us.
I prefer Daniel's method if this is a vote :)
We don't have to call some external processor which might randomly break (e.g. putting #pragma foo as the first line), it can all be done easily in perl.
What does the syntax actually which to express?
Basicaly what Benjamin stated, right ?
If some condition is met use dependancy foo if not then use dependency blah.
So why not do this in the abbreviated if syntax we all know from C or perl which can easily be explained.
Peter
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
