Re: [PATCH v4 07/31] kconfig: add built-in function support

[Ulf Magnusson]

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:50 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2018-05-22 0:10 GMT+09:00 Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Will the following be equal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         $(foo,abc,$(x),$(y))
>>>>>>         $(foo, abc, $(x), $(y))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> make is rather annoying as space is significant, but there seems no good reason
>>>>>> for kconfig to inheritate this.
>>>>>> So unless there are good arguments consider alloing the spaces.
>>>>>> If the current implmentation already supports optional spaces then I just missed
>>>>>> it whie reviewing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Sam
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 from me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also find the rules for whitespace in Make confusing, and always
>>>>> have to look them up when doing trickier stuff. Maybe they're the
>>>>> result of people not considering whitespace initially, and stuff
>>>>> getting tacked on later. GNU Make adds some alternate syntaxes with
>>>>> quotes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was going to mention shell, but it looks like you already did. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> If we go with Make-like syntax, maybe we could at least have a variant
>>>>> with fewer whitespace gotchas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Ulf
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it'd be a pain to implement, but something like $(foo $(x) "two
>>>> words" "interpolated $(stuff)") seems pretty nice, with three
>>>> arguments there.
>>>
>>> Guess that might interact poorly with $(shell foo "bar baz") though.
>>> Kinda nice to have a syntax that doesn't overlap with shell when
>>> building shell commands.
>>
>>
>> Right.  I can easily imagine
>> that would end up with more gotchas due to quoting and escaping.
>
> Yeah, you're right. It's probably trying to fix something that isn't
> broken. Make's syntax really isn't bad there, just slightly
> non-obvious at first...
>
> Think it's fine now. Better to commit to the syntax than trying to be
> "helpful" by adding a bunch of random exceptions too. That probably
> gives a bigger mess in the end...
>
> Cheers,
> Ulf

I'm fine with the comma-after-function-name change though. That just
makes it more consistent.

Cheers,
Ulf