On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Jul 21 2007 15:05, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > >> +menuconfig FUSION > >... > >> +if FUSION > >> > >> config FUSION_SPI > >... > >> +endif # FUSION > > > > i just *know* i'm going to regret asking this, but is there a > >compelling reason why the internal contents of a "menuconfig FUBAR" > >needs to still be surrounded by a "if FUBAR" condition? > > Note that if/endif actually translates to a "depends on" for every > contained object. I prefer the reduced clutter [if/endif] over > having explicit depends on on every object, since it is redundant.
oh, i absolutely agree with you there. > >wouldn't it be philosophically cleaner if the internals of a > >menuconfig structure *automatically* depended on selection of the > >menuconfig and the "if" part was implicit? > > "menuconfig" is not a start marker like "menu" was. Hence it has no > "stop" marker either. We would need a new object type for that. http://www.linuxrocket.net/index.cgi?a=MailArchiver&ma=ShowMail&Id=525787 rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
