On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:18 PM, David Holland <dholland-t...@netbsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 01:14:51AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > > > ?> > (Besides, it's not necessarily as flat as all that, either.) > > > ?> > > > ?> It's necessary to be flat to be modular. > > > > > > Mm... not strictly. That's only true when there are diamonds in the > > > dependency graph; otherwise, declaring B inside A just indicates that > > > B depends on A. Consider the following hackup of files.ufs: > > > > There're diamonds (for example, ppp-deflate depends on ppp and zlib). > > Sure. But mostly there aren't.
% grep ':.*,' sys/conf/files | wc -l 86 > > In this plan, what *.kmod will be generated? > > The ones declared? Or one big one, or one per source file, or whatever > the blazes you want, actually... And how dependencies are represented? > Um. I know perfectly well that config currently uses braces for > something else. That's irrelevant. There's no need to use braces for > grouping; it just happens to be readily comprehensible to passersby. > There's an infinite number of possible other grouping symbols that can > be used, ranging from << >> to (! !) or even things like *( )*. > Furthermore, the existing use of braces can just as easily be changed > to something else if that seems desirable. I don't like unnecessary changes. > There's a reason I said "syntax like the above" and "if we can all > agree on what it should be". That wasn't a concrete proposal, it > wasn't meant to be a concrete proposal, no concrete proposal is > complete without an analysis of whether the grammar remains > unambiguous, and nitpicking it on those grounds is futile. > > You seem to be completely missing the point. So you're objecting my concrete proposal with your not-concrete proposal. All you've said is "I don't like small files". If you have a concrete proposal, please post it as another thread. Masao