Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Now that we seem to have MSVC building working tolerably well, I think
>> we need a bit of cleanup. In particular, I think the config setup needs
>> to be more like the arguments we pass to the standard configure script.
>>
>
> 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.
>> 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.
>
>> . where the configure arg would occur with a single value, just set
>> that (e.g. '--prefix' => 'c:\\foo' )
>> . where the configure arg would occur with a multiple value, provide a
>> listref (e.g. '--with-libs' => [ 'c:\\bar', 'd:\\baz' ] )
>>
>
> These I get. ;-)
>
>
>
>
OK. I think we have a plan. Let's work on it.
cheers
andrew