On 2024-10-04 13:51, Robin Jarry wrote:
Mattias Rönnblom, Oct 04, 2024 at 10:40:
Making small scripts needlessly complicated is not good example, it's
a bad one.
I don't find adding argument checks needlessly complicated but this is a
matter of preference. To me, Python is not shell script. If you want
something small, shell might be more appropriate?
Python can serve in many roles. I suggest you be more pragmatic and
sensitive to the context. Sometimes the non-existence/non-use of doc
strings and other language features that makes sense in larger programs
is not a sign of the author being out to "treat Python badly".
Sure, but it would be required to invoke the script for every header
file in the tree. Not sure I think that would be a net gain.
You can store a global exit status in the script and process all
headers before exiting with an error if any.
You will need to give the user a list of offending header files.
I'm not suggesting to avoid printing the offending file names. I'm only
suggesting to exit(1) if there were *any* offending file names. That way
you don't have to check *in meson* if the script did output anything.
Checking the exit status is simpler.
What you wrote was "/../ That way you would not have to capture stdout
at all and you could leave meson do the work.".
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow. Is there a way to not
capture the script output, invoke the script only once per build, and
yet produce a fine-grained error message to the user?
I agree properly setting the exit code is an improvement. I just don't
see how that materially changes anything on the meson side of things.
But then, I know nothing about meson.
Sorry for being pedantic, but Python code in DPDK is already treated
badly. I wish we could improve the quality a bit.
Cheers.
