[syslinux] submenus and menu title

[Ady]

Date sent:      	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 05:29:53 -0400
From:           	Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com>
To:             	For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa 
<syslinux at zytor.com>
Subject:        	Re: [syslinux] submenus and menu title
Send reply to:  	For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa 
<syslinux at zytor.com>
	<mailto:syslinux-request at zytor.com?subject=unsubscribe>
	<mailto:syslinux-request at zytor.com?subject=subscribe>

> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ady <ady-sf at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Date sent:              Sun, 16 Sep 2012 09:40:06 -0700
> > From:                   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com>
> > To:                     For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa
> > <syslinux at zytor.com>
> > Subject:                Re: [syslinux] submenus and menu title
> >
> > 1._ Menu entry in parent menu.
> 
> I'll agree except that it should be more concise.
> 
> Under MENU LABEL, to the effect of:
> 'When no "MENU LABEL" is used directly under a "MENU BEGIN" directive,
> the order of precedence of explicitly specified directives is the
> submenu's "MENU TITLE", the submenu's tagname, or an empty string'
> 

Hello Gene,

Actually, I think a separated doc should be dealing with all the 
characteristics and info about submenus. There is too much info not  
specifically documented about submenus (I'll skip the details for now 
in this thread). Using "short phrases" would mean an assumption about 
some deeper previous knowledge the reader has beforehand.

I know I "over explained" the fallback rules / behavior / conditions, 
but I it intentionally. A technical mind might understand it 
immediately, but a general user sometimes needs "full sentences" and 
the assumption of less initial detailed knowledge.

For example, I wanted to make it absolutely clear for a common user 
that the rules are "serial" (nested conditions), and not "parallel". 
In other words, the user (who is writing the cfg file) can't just 
start directly by the 2nd (or 3rd) condition without evaluating the 
first (higher priority) rules before it. That's why I used such large 
num numbering for each step, and repeated the intention in a text 
format.

For a short documentation, specially for technical minds, I think a 
table would be adequate to show all 8 possible cases.


> > 2._ Menu title in the submenu (submenu title).
> 
> Similar note and under "MENU TITLE", 'For submenus lacking a "MENU
> TITLE" directive ..."
> 
> > Note that "2.1" and "2.1.1" are already being used in version 4.05,
> > but are not documented.
> > The additional suggested fallback rules only improve 2 cases, in
> > which previously the submenu title would be blank. THIS MEANS THAT
> > PRACTICAL EXISTING CONFIGURATION FILES MAINTAIN THE CURRENT BEHAVIOR
> > EVEN AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED CONDITIONS.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> 1) doc bug/conflict: It needs to be stated that "MENU LABEL" is valid
> for a "MENU BEGIN"; "MENU END" block.
> 

Not only "MENU LABEL" but also sub- "MENU TITLE", in accordance with 
the fallback rules.

> 2) code bug per doc/menu.txt: "Submenus inherit the properties of
> their parent menus" however submenus do not inherit the title at this
> time.
> 

The actual use of the inheritance is part of my request too, so to 
make "case#8" more useful.

> 3) feature request: Allow the "MENU BEGIN" tagname to be used as the
> submenu's title.  This enhancement would allow a
> config author to compact the config by using the tagname for jumping
> via "MENU GOTO", parent labeling and submenu title.
> 

Yes, but only under the "serial" fallback rules (conditions) I stated 
before. Otherwise, it would change the current behavior, and we don't 
want such change.

My request ADDS the optional "tagname" as serial fallback rule, and 
then the inherited parent menu title as the next fallback rule. The 
"tagname" condition (according to the serial fallback rules as I 
wrote them before) makes "case#4" more useful. The "inherited menu 
title" condition (according to the serial fallback rules as I wrote 
them before) makes "case#8" more useful.

TIA,
Ady.