On 22.04.2017 20:16, David Hendricks wrote: > Thanks for getting this discussion going on the list, Nico. > > For reference, folks can view the proposed libflashrom.h at > https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/17946 to get a better idea for how these > prefixes will look in libflashrom functions and data structures. > > Also, let's add "fi_" for flashrom interface to the list of proposed > prefixes. > > My preferences (in order): > 1. lf_ > 2. flashrom_ > 3. fi_ > 4. fl_ > 5. flash_ > 6. fr_ > > IMO not only is "lf_" most intuitive, but the way the keys are spaced apart > comfortably on qwerty, dvorak, and colemak layouts and each character > (including the underscore) use a different hand to type. Same could be said > about fl_ with regards to keyboard layout. fr_ is awkward (keys vertically > adjacent) on qwerty and colemak, and fi_ is vertically adjacent on dvorak. > flash_ and flashrom_ are not bad but are obviously many more keystrokes. > > The problem I have with fl_ is that it is also used for flash layout > structs: https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/17944/4/layout.h . The layout > structs are used internally and can be changed easily, though.
My bad. Only the `struct fl_layout` is part of the libflashrom inter- face. I removed all other occurrences of the prefix for now from my patches. > > flash_ is pretty good - For the most part it flows well with functions such > as flash_image_read() and flash_image_write(), but is awkward with some > other stuff like "flash_set_log_callback()". If we're already typing >2 > letters I think we ought to just use flashrom_ as the prefix to be > complete, avoid awkward contexts, and avoid namespace conflicts (users > might want to use flash_ in their code). Agreed. Nico > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi flashrom folks, >> >> working again on implementing the libflashrom interface described here >> [1]. During review [2] the question arose what `fl_` means and if we >> don't want to use something else. The following alternatives were pro- >> posed in the wiki: >> >> * fl_ / FL_ (probably *fl*ashrom) >> * lf_ / LF_ (*l*ib *f*lashrom) >> * lfr_ / LFR_ (*l*ib *f*lash *r*om) >> * rom_ / ROM_ >> >> IIRC, on IRC the following was proposed: >> >> * fr_ / FR_ (*f*lash *r*om) >> >> I don't think it has to be an acronym, so I'd add: >> >> * flash_ / FLASH_ >> * flashrom_ / FLASHROM_ >> >> My personal preference would be either `fr_` or `flash_`. >> >> I think this will be open for discussion only for few days. Moving >> forward is currently more important than finding the perfect name. >> >> Best regards, >> Nico >> >> [1] https://www.flashrom.org/Libflashrom >> [2] https://review.coreboot.org/#/c/17946/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> flashrom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom >> > _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
