Sounds reasonable to me.
On 5/11/07, Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some of you know that, with encouragement from other devs, I'm doing a
> cleanup and reorganization of the Wesnoth directory layout. The immediate
> motivation is to make correct behavior easier for tools like wmlscope
> and wmllint, but there are long-standing issues about our data layout
> beneath these symptoms.
>
> After staring at the layout for a while, I think one source of
> grubbiness is that we've used directories to create a sort of
> half-baked package structure without making them package objects.
> The way capaigns are laid out is representative; for a campaign
> named "Battle of Foobar" there will be a Battle_of_Foobar.cfg
> and a Battle_of_Foobar directory, with the directory sort of
> accidentally a package by virtue of {}-inclusions in the .cfg.
>
> I have a proposal for a small extension of preprocessor behavior to
> make things cleaner.
>
> New rule: When a directory reference like {foodir/} resolves
> to a directory containing a file named "%main.cfg", it is treated
> as though the reference had been {foodir/%main.cfg}.
>
> With this rule, Battle_of_Foobar.cfg can move to Battle_of_Foobar/%main.cfg.
> The directory Battle_of_Foobar becomes a self-contained package. Including
> it processes %main.cfg and whatever files %main.cfg chooses to include.
> --
> >>esr>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wesnoth-dev mailing list
> Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"In theory, theory and practice are the same,
but in practice they're different."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. C. McNabb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
