Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
> > The kernel rulebase cannot. The real issue here is whether the CML1
> > language carries sufficient information to support things like
> > side-effect deduction. And the answer is "no".
>
> Thats an opinion not an answer. What doesn't it contain ?
New FAQ entry:
* Inventing CML2 was unnecessary, since CML1 carries enough information to
do consistency checking and side-effect forcing.
Jeff Garzik observed:
>I was tempted to introduce a "requires" token to express dependencies
>between subsystems, because I feel they are different from the other
>dependencies present,
Alan followed up with:
>The only interesting case I could find is the negation one - some
>rules are A conflicts with B which makes the UI side much more fun
Jeff and Alan have put their finger neatly on one of the key bits CML2
can do that CML1 cannot -- express cross-directory dependencies in
such a way that the configurator can force side effects in both
directions. This is, in fact, the very rock on which my original
attempt to save CML1 foundered after six weeks of effort.
-- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:11 EST