lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Disgusted with kbuild developers
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
> The graph tells you that. 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

That's right. This is a CML2 require/prohibit construct. CML1 cannot
express this, and it's essential for side-effect forcing to work. Jeff's
observation about being tempted to introduce a `require' turns out actually
to be equivalent once you see how both problems generalize.

You can't deduce these constraints from graph analysis, because they're
not implicit in the if/then tree structure that is the only thing CML1
knows about.

Jeff and Alan have now almost caught up to where I was two years ago when
I realized the CMl1 formalism was inadequate.

This is going in the FAQ.
--
<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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.080 / U:38.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site