Namespace prefix for libflashrom

[Nico Huber]

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/

[David Hendricks]

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.

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).


On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Nico Huber <[e-mail]> 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