On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Michael Wood <esiotrot_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I feel part 2 of the rules was not completely clear wrt. casing and
> did not mention dashes vs. underscores.

True, It certainly was an unintended lack of specification of posted
rules.I actually noticed when trying to clarify what the results would
be for already proposed strings. But I felt that changing rules on the
fly could upset someone, and tried to show what the outcome would be
precisely in order to allow new proposals that would be what people
actually wanted. Whole process was intended to allow anyone to propose
whatever seemed right to the one proposing it.

>  Based on your clarifications
> it seems that the current rules will force the variables for other
> build systems to uppercase, but leave them as-is for configure.  Also,
> underscores appear to be left as underscores in both cases.
>
> Based on your interpretation of the rules, what would
> [Config_Literal="windows-ssl"] look like for other build systems?  (I
> assume for configure it would look like --with-windows-ssl?)

Solely based on posted rules, for other build systems it would look
like WITH_WINDOWS-SSL or ENABLE_WINDOWS-SSL which looks ugly. Common
sense says it should actually result in WITH_WINDOWS_SSL or
ENABLE_WINDOWS_SSL

> Would it make sense to tweak the rules so that the proposed name is
> forced to lowercase with dashes for the configure options and forced
> to uppercase with underscores for the other build systems?

Yes, yes. I'm certainly in favour of that. Although I want explicit
approval on this thread from Marc Hoersken in order to interpret his
proposal in this way, given that his proposal would be affected by
this.

In any case, anyone is allowed to make proposals clarifying how thay
want them to be interpreted.

> Then the proposals would look like this:
>
> [Config_Literal="SCHANNEL"]
> configure: --with-schannel
> other: WITH_SCHANNEL or ENABLE_SCHANNEL
>
> [Config_Literal="WINDOWS_SSL"]
> configure: --with-windows-ssl
> other: WITH_WINDOWS_SSL or ENABLE_WINDOWS_SSL
>
> [Config_Literal="schannel"]
> configure: --with-schannel
> other: WITH_SCHANNEL or ENABLE_SCHANNEL
> (This would then be the same as the first option.)
>
> [Config_Literal="winssl"]
> configure: --with-winssl
> other: WITH_WINSSL or ENABLE_WINSSL
>
> I don't think this proposal contradicts the rules mentioned in your
> first e-mail, but I suppose even if it does, I'd like to know if you
> think it makes sense :)

Full sense.

Thanks for raising this issue.

Nearly 12 hours left yet for new proposals.

Thanks,

-- 
-=[Yang]=-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette:  http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html