Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] KABI example conversion and cleanup

Giuseppe Bilotta
2006-03-26T14:48:18Z

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:30:32 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:

> On Mar 26, 2006, at 08:53:05, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 08:47:51 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>>> The other thing that I quickly noticed while writing up the
>>> patches is that it's kind of tedious typing __kabi_ over and over
>>> again. I actually did first try with __linux_abi_ but the typing
>>> effort and finger cramps made me give up on that really quickly.
>>
>> What kind of barebone editor are you using that doesn't offer a way
>> (through macro or automatic completion or abbreviations or
>> substitution or plain copy and paste or whatever else) to shorten
>> that typing effort?
>
> Well, actually I was using vim, and although I know how to configure
> shortcuts like that; do we really want to force people to use
> shortcuts and abbreviations to be able to sanely edit the ABI code?
> Isn't that counterproductive with the desire to get the maintainers
> fixing up their own ABIs? Plus all the extra verbiage tends to make
> the lines too long (80-column limit) and makes it harder to read.

Oh, I'm not exactly a fan of verbosity myself (essentially for the
lines too long and hard to read), which is why I suggested __labi_ as
a prefix --I wasn't arguing in favour of __linux_abi_.

However, as far as I know all programmer-friendly editors have some
form of easy to use code-completion feature (e.g. in vim ctrl+n/ctrl+p
are very handy without the need to define specific shortcuts, and the
new completion code in the future vim 7 is extremely promising ...)
and while I do agree that __linux_abi_ is too long, you remarked
yourself __[ukl]abi_ is still annoying, albeit shorter :) *Any* prefix
chosen will benefit from completion ;)

--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety." Benjamin Franklin