Re: [PATCH v2 REPOST] dtc: Add support for named integer constants

[Jon Loeliger <jdl-CYoMK+44s/E@public.gmane.org>]

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:54:30PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > John, David,
> > 
> > What can we do to reach consensus on expanding dtc to handle named
> > constants, or in general any future direction to extend the syntax with
> > expressions etc.?
> 
> Hrm, so, I'm not at all keen to add a named constant syntax without at
> least having an outline of what a future macro/function syntax would
> look like.

Which is where I thought it was left earlier...? :-)
And it's not just what the macro/function syntax will look like,
but also how these will play into a more generalized expression
handling mechanism.  Defining something one-off now that doesn't
fit well into a long term plan is less than ideal.

Yes, I know that is tantamount to requiring the whole, larger
picture be solved first.  But Dave is right -- at least an outline
of the direction.  Seriously, the lexical problems can form some
of the nastiest gotchas if we're not careful from the onset.

> The latter is almost certain to permit the former as a subcase, and
> I'd really rather not end up with two different syntaxes for
> constants.

Exactly.

> Unfortunately, much as I'd like to get all these extended features
> into dtc,

Agreed....

> > Will either of you be attending Linaro Connect or ELC 2012 in February
> > by any chance? We could get together and talk this through in person if
> > you are...
> 
> Not for me, I'm afraid.

Only if they are in Austin. :-)  Which is to say "Sorry, no."

jdl