Re: An alternative way of populating /proc

[Richard Gooch]

Bill Wendling writes:
> Also sprach Jan-Simon Pendry:
> } > > >     create_proc_entries(NULL,
> } > > >             "test:{bar:{x:%d,y:%d,z:%d},foo:%f}",
> } > > >             &x, &y, &z, foo_fun);
> } > >
> } > > Thinking further about it, could the %'s become something
> } > > else?  It'd be nice to be able to make these strings with
> } > > sprintf().
> } > 
> } > No problem. Use "%%".
> } 
> } i think the suggestion is that %% is ugly, and more important, prone
> } to simply errors - the original doesn't need to use %.  it could
> } use something else, like $, @, & etc.
> } 
> But % is so much like C that it's natural of how to think about it when
> coding.

Precisely. Why invent a new syntax when we have a perfectly working
syntax that everyone (who will be hacking the kernel) is familiar
with?

Principle of least surprises and all that.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]