Re: [PATCH v12 1/7] buildtools/chkincs: relax C linkage requirement

["Mattias Rönnblom" <hofors@lysator.liu.se>]

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.
>