Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm just pointing out that we'll end up with somelike really long and
> ugly since there'll be at least 3 'defaults' and probably more. If you
> think it's better to have lots of the test ? a : b's nested instead of
> making these things architecutre-specific, that's fine I suppose.
It's a tradeoff. The alternative to a long, ugly declaration in one place
would be a bunch of marginally shorter and less ugly declarations scattered
to hellandgone through the ruleset. :-)
I know that the second alternative would be harder to compile and
validate. I judge that it would also be a net loss for humans
maintaining the code -- too hard to be sure that you know what all
the relevant declarations are. Better the big ugly declaration you
know than the many smll declarations you know not...
There's a problem like this now with unless/suppress declarations, but
I saw no way to avoid it there.
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
What is a magician but a practicing theorist?
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi, 'Return of the Jedi'
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
