| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MSVC |
| Date: | 2007-05-01 20:39:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4637A591.9020102@hagander.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Why?
>> I'm not saying I'm against it, I'd just like to know why? Personally, I
>> find the store-in-a-file a whole lot more handy.
>>
>
> I am only talking about the names. I want the hash key names to be the
> same as the configure argument names.
Oh, misunderstood you there. Then I have no objection :-)
>>> Since this is a perl hash, we'll need to have some sort of mapping
>>> convention. I suggest this:
>>>
>>> . where the configure arg doesn't take a value, make the hash value
>>> undef (e.g. '--enable-integer-datetimes' => undef )
>>>
>>
>> Is there a way to differ that from just not being defined? otherwise,
>> why not just make it 1 instead of undef?
>>
>
> I guess we can just handle 1/0, and if we detect one of those act
> appropriately - I don't think we have any cases where those would be
> expected values of configure arguments.
I think it would make things clearer. At least for those of us who don't
breathe perl :-)
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-01 20:42:30 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-01 20:37:14 | Re: MSVC |