Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>:
> > I am not familiar in how this works, but it would be cool if those
> > requirements were marked as "weak" and un-marked if the option relying
> > on them is.
> >
> > i.e.
> > I have driver "foo" requiring "bar". If I mark foo, I want bar to be marked.
> > But if then I change my mind and unmark foo, I wish for bar to be unmarked
> > (unless explicitly re-marked). But if I select first bar and then foo, then
> > bar is not to be de-selected when foo is.
>
> Also: if there is a driver baz that also requires bar we would want bar included
> if EITHER foo or baz were selected, but bar should not be included only
> if BOTH foo and baz are deslected... Choosing foo should mark bar; Choosing
> baz should also mark bar; But if foo is deselected, then bar should not be
> unmarked since baz is still selected...
I've actually been thinking about something similar, but before this morning
I didn't have a semantics for it that I liked. How about this?
* Implement a stack of "weak" bindings for each symbol, each associated
with the symbol that forced it. A user setting overrides all weak bindings,
otherwise more recent ones have priority over older ones. Whenever a symbol
changes value all the weak bindings it forces go away (then it may make new
ones). Indicate weak bindings with a distinguished foreground color.
-- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression: for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach unto himself. -- Thomas Paine
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:15 EST