Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 16:32:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Aaron Ucko <UCKO AT VAX1 DOT ROCKHURST DOT EDU>
Subject: Re: Extending the djgpp.env file [was: Real-mode gcc renamed doesn't
 work]
To: turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp
Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Organization: Rockhurst College; Kansas City, MO

>around compiler bugs or multiple configurations.  I've got an
>env_vars.bat file that I call from autoexec.bat; if I uncommented
>everything in it, I'd have an environment of about 3KB!  Add that to
>my 4DOS alias file and you've got a 5KB environment.  In Unix, it's
Why not be more efficient by removing all the `set's from env_vars.bat and
using 4DOS's set/r?

>multiple programs to share the same section?  I can think of a number
>of syntaxes that might work:
>(1) disallow null program-specific sections.  Then
>
>        [gcc]
>
>        [gcc-rm]
>        foo=bar
>
>        [gcc-nantoka]
>        foo=baz
>
>would be interpreted
>
>        [gcc]
>        foo=bar
>
>        [gcc-rm]
>        foo=bar
>
>        [gcc-nantoka]
>        foo=baz
>
>(2) Have sections terminated by blank lines.  Then the above would be
>    interpreted as a null section for gcc, but 
>
>        [gcc]
>        [gcc-rm]
>        foo=bar
>
>        [gcc-nantoka]
>        foo=baz
>
>would set the section for gcc to the same as that for gcc-rm.
>(3) use the lexical syntax "[gcc, gcc-rm]" for mutiple program section
>    headers.
>(4) use the lexical syntax "[gcc] [gcc-rm]" (all on one line).
>(5) Independently of the above possibilities, do we permit (now or in
>    the future) multiple sections for a given program so that
>
>        [gcc, gcc-rm]
>        foo=bar
>
>        [gcc]
>        baz=blap
>
>        [gcc-rm]
>        spock=bones
>
>    means
>
>        [gcc]
>        foo=bar
>        baz=blap
>
>        [gcc-rm]
>        foo=bar
>        spock=bones
>
(6)
	[gcc-common]
	foo=bar

	[gcc] : [gcc-common]
	baz=blap

	[gcc-rm] : [gcc-common]
	spock=bones

also means the above--kind of like C++ inheritance.  I'm not sure what would
be done with multiple inheritance, though; perhaps each referenced section
would override the previous, and the actual contents would override all of
the above.  This is probably about the most powerful feasible syntax.

>    We may not want the environment file possibilities to be as
>baroque as Windwoes .INI files, but then again, it's not clear to me
>that this would cost that much (except somebody's time in programming
>it---and it may not be worth that).  In fact, if it's not too costly,
>Windwoes .INI syntax might not be a bad "standard" to be compatible
>with.  (Or upwardly compatible with.)

Windoze .INIs are baroque??  They don't even allow a section name to be used
more than once (Well, they do, but they ignore all references after the first).
Comments are the only thing they have that the above lack--and they'd be pretty
easy to code too.

--- Aaron Ucko (ucko AT vax1 DOT rockhurst DOT edu; finger for PGP public key) -=- httyp!
-=*=-Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.-=*=-
Geek code 2.1 [finger hayden AT vax1 DOT mankato DOT msus DOT edu for explanation]: 
 GCS/M/S d(-) H s g+ p? !au a-- w+ v+ C++(+++)>++++ U-(S+)>++++ P+ L>++ 3(-) 
 E-(----) !N>++ K- W(--) M-(--) V(--) po-(--) Y+(++) t(+) !5 j R G tv--(-) 
 b+++ !D(--) B--(---) e>++++(*) u++(@) h!() f(+) r-(--)>+++ n+(-) y?