I'd be willing to consider alternatives. The key thing here is that we need
a way to generate multiple configurations within a single expansion,
currently at least.
I suppose an alternative would be to have gyp expand things multiple times
with CONF or somesuch being each value from a list of
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Bradley Nelson bradnel...@google.comwrote:
S,o as it happens, I just had someone on nacl make the first use of
multiple inheritance this morning.
He hasn't checked it in yet, but the use case is:
'Common': {
# bunch of global stuff
'defines': [
#
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Bradley Nelson bradnel...@google.comwrote:
1) Do you support multiple inheritance? I notice the inherit_from is
specified as an array. That's scaryish.
Multiple inheritance is supported, not sure it's wise to use, but well gyp
has lots of features like
We've got the gypd (d = debug) sorta-generator format as an option,
alongside xcode, msvs, make, etc. It dumps the dicts it receives as
.gypd files next to your .gyp files, so you can see what would be fed
to a generator. You might need to feed it some -D because it's not
tied to an OS by
1) Do you support multiple inheritance? I notice the inherit_from is
specified as an array. That's scaryish.
Multiple inheritance is supported, not sure it's wise to use, but well gyp
has lots of features like that :-)
I almost didn't support it, but concluded that, for instance 64-bit,
I'm sure that there are better examples than the below. Presumably if
you want something defined in both Debug and Release, you want it
globally, and you'd be better off specifying it outside of the
configuration altogether.
Brad, we can still inherit from non-abstract configurations, right?
Brad, we can still inherit from non-abstract configurations, right?
This might be useful...
yes, we can, and it would
Mark
Bradley Nelson wrote:
configurations can now inherit from one or more other configurations, and
configurations which are not fully expressed should be marked
Sounds really powerful...but this scares methough that could just be my
generalized fear of inheritance. However, if we start putting inheritance
into the system, I worry about the level of complexity the gyp specification
language will pick up and the possible breakages of information hiding
What does the syntax look like?
- nick
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Bradley Nelson bradnel...@google.comwrote:
Hi All,
I've just rolled out an enhancement to gyp to support inheritance in
configurations.
This shouldn't have any noticeable effect other than reducing the
repetition
configurations can now inherit from one or more other configurations, and
configurations which are not fully expressed should be marked 'abstract': 1,
So something like this:
'configurations': {
'Common: {
'abstract': 1,
# common settings
},
'Debug': {
'inherit_from':
10 matches
Mail list logo
