[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc
Rik van Riel ( wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2001, Erik Hensema wrote:
>> >1) IT SHOULD NOT BE PRETTY. No tabs to line up columns. No "progress
>> >bars." No labels except as "proc comments" (see later). No in-line labelling.
>> It should not be pretty TO HUMANS. Slight difference. It should
>> be pretty to shellscripts and other applications though.
>I really fail to see your point, it's trivial to make
>files which are easy to read by humans and also very
>easy to parse by shellscripts.

Right, let me rephrase myself. There's no real need for /proc to be pretty
to humans, though it would be nice. Readability by applications should be
the priority though.

>MODEL_NAME="Celeron (Mendocino)"

Nice, it could work. However, the kernel does impose policy in this case
(variable naming policy, that is). But it's a nice compromise between
readability by humans and readability by programs.

Erik Hensema (
I'm on the list, no need to Cc: me, though I appreciate one if your
mailer doesn't support the References header.
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:0.213 / U:1.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site