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.
>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.
> and having said that, i realize that there are menuconfig examples
>for which the above is not strictly true, but i can't remember where
>i've seen them. all i remember about them is that they we're a bit
>confusing.
Jan
--
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
