[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

    Martin Dalecki wrote:

    > Stephen Satchell wrote:
    >>At 12:23 PM 11/5/01 +0100, Martin Dalecki wrote:
    >>>Every BASTARD out there telling the world, that parsing ASCII formatted
    >>>is easy should be punished to providing a BNF definition of it's syntax.
    >>>Otherwise I won't trust him. Having a struct {} with a version field,
    >>>possible semantical changes wil always be easier faster more immune
    >>>to errors to use in user level programs.
    >>I would love for the people who write the code that generates the /proc
    >>info to be required to document the layout of the information. The best
    >>place for that documentation is the source, and in English or other
    >>accepted human language, in a comment block. Not in "header lines" or
    >>other such nonsense. I don't need no stinkin' BNF, just a reasonable

    I would rather have a header block, as well as docs in the source.
    If the header cannot easily explain it, then the header can have a URL
    or other link to the full explanation. I don't expect to be able to parse
    every /proc interface with a single tool, but I would like to be able to
    easily parse individual ones with perl, sscanf, etc...


    Ben Greear <> <Ben_Greear AT>
    President of Candela Technologies Inc

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.024 / U:53.656 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site