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: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST