On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:53:14PM +0000, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:47:49AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Or are we going to sit around discussing this for another five months? > > Please! :) > > Pierre was working on the approach I mentioned, but I think he is short > on time. I will take a look at the conversion, but I have a few other > fixes on my plate first. > > In the meantime, I don't think your patch makes anything _worse_, since > we already have these sorts of bugs in the current parsing code. To be fair, I lack the time to do a complete parse option overhaul that is like a few days of work doing that only (and my employer will probably complain if I do so ;P). Though I'm trying to make parse_options incremental right now, and I believe that it can work quite well, and allow way more incremental conversions. One can overcome many limitations by exposing some stuff from the parse_options logic, and just parse things in one pass. The _really_ nice thing with this approach is that you can trivially merge parse_options descriptors by chaining parse_option_step (see my other mail). I'll probably have a RFC series soon. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpxfP470bO7j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
