Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 May 2008 14:37:10 +0200 | Subject | Re: kconfig - a suggestion how to fix the select issue | From | Oleg Verych <> |
| |
Sam,
> > Given: > > - CONFIG_A=y > > - CONFIG_B=n > > - CONFIG_D=y > > - CONFIG_E=n > > > > Will C be visible? > The above has a syntax error. A 'depends on' cannot have an > if caluse.
would you please write logic rules with more neutral language, like
(A || B) && C
or similar. Depencies (forward or backward) can be described as
SYM_FOO <- { # depencies/value
($SYM_DEP1 || !$SYM_DEP2) && $SYM_DEP3=xx # implicit or $SYM_DEP4 || $SYM_DEP5
} -> { # selects
SYM_2SELECT1 = $SYM_BAR ? foo_bar : bar_for SYM_2SELECT2 = bar; SYM_BA; SYM_ZZ
# SYM_BA && SYM_ZZ will have value of SYM_FOO }
or something.
> And I did not get your point either.
I try to design TUI now for better multidimensional walking/selecting on the web of symbols and decencies, and i don't get those kconfig constructs.
> Are you trying to say that we cannot improve kconfig to better > express the dependencies or what is your point? > > Puzzeled...
Thanks. ____
| |