Re: [flashrom] Namespace prefix for libflashrom

[Nico Huber]

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):
> lf_
> flashrom_
> fi_
> fl_
> flash_
> 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  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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom