RFC: Support for future compilers in base

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Feb 15, 2013, at 16:30, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>>> +    if {[string first "macports-gcc" $compiler] == 0 ||
>>> +        [string first "dragonegg-" $compiler] == 0} {
>>> +        return no
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        return yes
>>>    }
>> 
>> Can't this be:
>> 
>>   return [string first "macports-gcc" $compiler] == 0 ||
>>       [string first "dragonegg-" $compiler] == 0
>> 
>> 
>>> +proc portconfigure::compiler_is_port {compiler} {
>>> +    if {[portconfigure::compiler_port_name ${compiler}] == ""} {
>>> +        return no
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        return yes
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>> 
>> Can't this be:
>> 
>> proc portconfigure::compiler_is_port {compiler} {
>>   return [portconfigure::compiler_port_name ${compiler}] == ""
>> }
> 
> I think you have the logic backwards. Both of those expressions would have to be negated before returning the result. Jeremy's original if statements return "no" when the conditionals evaluate to "true".

Absolutely right. Let's try that again:


On Feb 15, 2013, at 02:10, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:

> +    if {[string first "macports-gcc" $compiler] == 0 ||
> +        [string first "dragonegg-" $compiler] == 0} {
> +        return no
> +    } else {
> +        return yes
>    }

Can't this be:

    return [string first "macports-gcc" $compiler] != 0 &&
        [string first "dragonegg-" $compiler] != 0

> +proc portconfigure::compiler_is_port {compiler} {
> +    if {[portconfigure::compiler_port_name ${compiler}] == ""} {
> +        return no
> +    } else {
> +        return yes
> +    }
> +}

Can't this be:

proc portconfigure::compiler_is_port {compiler} {
    return [portconfigure::compiler_port_name ${compiler}] != ""
}