On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:23 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > I'll take these in for v3 as well and carefully review myself > > for any further errors of the same sorts.. > > I suggest to consider a few additional wording adjustments. > > > > +``runchecks``. You can for instance use:: > > +``runchecks``. You can use for instance::
Will fix. > * Do you care for the handling of orphaned words in paragraphs? Will look over it, thanks. > * Was any consensus achieved already for corresponding names? > > x Could a longer variable name like “CHECKING_FLAGS” be easier to remember > than the proposed “CF”? I kept CF as is already established as the flag to use for parameters with C= > x Will the naming style matter (if you compare the approaches “checkpatch” > and “get_maintainer”)? No consensus made on the naming, just that I tried using verbatim names from sparse, eg lowercase-dash vs UPPERCASE_UNDERSCORE as in checkpatch and found the runchecks.cfg and reporting lines more easy to read using the uppercase variants, and that it looks more nice to have a uniform output across checkers. I think that the visual output of a test is important, as even we developers tend to be more happy with (and willing to execute) programs that produce nice output vs ones with ugly, cluttery, inconsistent output :-) Thanks, Knut > > > Regards, > Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
