[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:0.116 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site