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
