Hello Bruce,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 7:08 PM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > sure I like it that much as a feature :-) I rather like having unique
> > > prefixes for each command. I wasn't actually aware of the testpmd "help
> > > <section>" command at all. I will have to look into it.
> >
> > Let me propose an alternative hack.
> > I mentionned previously that we could have a better namespace /
> > discriminant for those symbols, and it seems easier than I thought:
> >
> > @@ -25,8 +25,10 @@ def process_command(tokens, cfile, comment):
> > sys.exit(1)
> > for t in tokens:
> > if t.startswith('<'):
> > - break
> > - name.append(t)
> > + t_type, t_name = t[1:].split('>')
> > + name.append(t_name)
> > + else:
> > + name.append(t)
> > name = '_'.join(name)
> >
> > result_struct = []
> >
> > With this, any command implementation symbol has the full chain of
> > token names as a prefix which will ensure there is no conflict.
> > WDYT?
> >
> Having thought a little more about it, I still don't like having the full
> command in all cases, but I can see it being useful for cases of
> overlapping prefixes.
>
> How about making it optional - setting a flag in the typename, or in the
> parameter name to indicate that it should be included in the overall
> command name. For example, if we prefix the variable name with "_" or "__",
> it could indicate that we can choose to include this.
>
> show port <UINT16>n --> void cmd_show_port_parsed(...)
> show port <UINT16>_n --> void cmd_show_port_n_parsed(...)
>
I think I get what you mean, and it seems acceptable.
> Prefixes on strings beyond initial tokens could just be silently stripped.
By initial tokens, do you mean fixed strings token before a <> typed token ?
--
David Marchand
