From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] kvargs: support list value
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:11:40 -0700
Message-ID: <20181009081140.5c977ad6@xeon-e3>
References: <20181009021858.19216-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20181009021858.19216-2-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20181009141406.rle54bpq6ictu3zd@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
 <6562576.89BUxVsNiX@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?R2HDq3Rhbg==?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 ophirmu@mellanox.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, arybchenko@solarflare.com,
 olivier.matz@6wind.com, remy.horton@intel.com
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com (mail-pf1-f196.google.com
 [209.85.210.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7031B57F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  9 Oct 2018 17:11:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id c25-v6so1001693pfe.6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 08:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6562576.89BUxVsNiX@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:31:24 +0200
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:

> 09/10/2018 16:14, Ga=C3=ABtan Rivet:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >=20
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 04:18:55AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: =20
> > > If a value contains a comma, rte_kvargs_tokenize() will split here.
> > > In order to support list syntax [a,b] as value, an extra parsing of
> > > the square brackets is added.
> > >  =20
> >=20
> > Nice, I was actually planning to do this.
> >=20
> > I think it could be useful to also support () and {}, as well as
> > recursive lists, but it is best to have a first version to support
> > representor and go from this. =20
>=20
> Yes, we have no usage of () and {} so far.

This is getting complex enough that doing a real parser maybe necessary.
Why not lex/yacc?

Or better yet go to real syntax like JSON.