Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Arnaud, All, > > On Tuesday 10 May 2011 20:12:11 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Yann E. MORIN >> <yann.morin.1998@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > In case a choice appears in two places, and each instance depends on >> > different conditions, the visibility of the choice item is not coherent. > [--SNIP--] >> > If neither A not B is selected, the choice is not visible (expected): >> > [ ] A >> > [ ] B >> > ==> OK >> > >> No, there is a first bug here, B should not appear as a child of A, >> but it is irrelevant to the other issue. [note for later, >> menu_finalize() is breaking the tree, damn dependency...] > > The first I saw this behavior, I thought as you did: B should not be > considered a child of A, as it does not depend on A, but on !A. > > But then, B is directly dependent on the value of A, so it kind of makes > sense to treat it as a child of A, and indent it. > > Of course, I don't really mind one way or the other. :-) > I'd argue this is more a correctness one. A bare config symbol (that is not a menu or a choice of some sort) cannot do not have children, whatever the internal representation is. The same apply for choice _value_. - Arnaud -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
