On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:16:18 -0700
David Hendricks <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thanks for getting this discussion going on the list, Nico.
> For reference, folks can view the proposed libflashrom.h at
c/17946to 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
> 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.
I value giving thoughts to details, but in this case I reside more with
torvalds: "if your typing speed is the main issue when you're coding,
you're doing something seriously wrong."
In my opinion the prefix has to satisfy a number of requirements:
- no ISO C(99/11) or POSIX violations
- no easy collisions with other libraries or user functions
- easily recognizable prefix for humans associated with the concept of
libflashrom (i.e. some kind of abstraction to interact with NOR
flash chips via different programmers)
- reasonable short length to avoid overly long function names etc.
based on the prefix
> 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).
flash_ seems to me a bit too concrete... it gets (too) easily associated
with the actual memory device and not so much to libflashrom IMHO.
flashrom_ is quite long and would be associated with flashrom (the
utility) and would make it harder to distinguishing the library from
libflashrom_ is probably too long but would at least transport the
meaning best in my opinion.
So... shorter but conveying the same meaning:
- lflashrom, lfrom: meh
- lflashr: would require a new awful website with flash chips dancing
for no good reason ;)
- lf: was already mentioned, I deem it a bit too short and ambiguous
- fl: too easily misinterpreted as a flashrom function prefix IMHO -
the aspect of being a library is important to me.
- libf: would be in the tradition of short-named unix libraries (and
seems to be unused actually as a library name), but does not really
improve on lf and would make it look way too important than it is :)
- lfr: was proposed in the wiki, possibly by myself - can't remember.
This might be the optimal compromise: intuitive if you heard it
once, probably quite unique and very short.
- lfl: might also work if neither lfr nor lf are acceptable (but why
would lfl then be :)
Thus my favorites are basically
I'd love to hear some arguments about your preferences.