INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:48 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : PITA != hard. If we're not willing to put in the effort to fix
> : something, I don't think we should call it hard to do. We should
> : call it like it is: non-trivial, involved or significant. Heck,
> : we can even call it a major undertaking. But hard? No, I don't
> : think it's hard at all.
> 
> Agreed.  But having retrofitted grammars in the past, coupled with the
> fact that config doesn't create a proper parse tree means we'd be
> rewriting huge portions of config, almost a complete rewrite from
> scratch, I'd say, would be necessary.  And then you've sunk a huge
> amount of time into solving a tiny problem.  Rewriting config should
> produce more benefits than just this one problem.  That's why I called
> it hard.

Yes. I do believe that it's a "big job" and it's fair to ask
whether it's worth.

> : How does this address the "I don't want everything, I just want
> : my CVS keyword" example?
*snip*
> I don't understand the "I just want my CVS keywords expanded"
> example.

The inspiration came from Peter Jeremy's email in this thread.

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at mac.com