From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1FZodO-0003oR-DA for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:33:14 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZodM-0003nt-6Y for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:33:12 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZodK-0003nQ-Hs for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:33:11 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZodK-0003nK-8G for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:33:10 -0400 Received: from [194.109.24.23] (helo=smtp-vbr3.xs4all.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZogg-0004xC-Eu for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:36:38 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (249-174.surfsnel.dsl.internl.net [145.99.174.249]) by smtp-vbr3.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3TCX8dC050746 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:33:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mgerards@xs4all.nl) Mail-Copies-To: mgerards@xs4all.nl To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <877j58boc2.fsf@xs4all.nl> <200604291404.57583.okuji@enbug.org> From: Marco Gerards Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:34:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200604291404.57583.okuji@enbug.org> (Yoshinori K. Okuji's message of "Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:04:56 +0200") Message-ID: <873bfwblvy.fsf@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Subject: Re: Include X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:33:12 -0000 "Yoshinori K. Okuji" writes: > On Saturday 29 April 2006 13:42, Marco Gerards wrote: >> A lot of people have been asking about an include >> command/source/. command. But I am wondering if it just can be the >> same as configfile, except for the cls. > > No. It should be the same as "." in BASH. The command "configfile" is more > similar to invoking another shell in BASH (i.e. it creates another context, > while "." is executed in the current context). In this sense, it might be > better to remove configfile and simply allow the user to "execute" a config > file (like "grub> (hd0,1)/boot/grub/another.cfg"). Currently we do not support any context, so it is the same. I prefer to use some command to execute files. It makes the parser simpler and moves code into commands, which are easier to change. -- Marco