Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff])

[Ben Greear]

Stephen Satchell wrote:

> The /proc API was developed to solve a specific problem.  Now, people 
> have proposed and The Powers That Be have accepted extensions to the 
> /proc interface as a superior way to tune the kernel, particularly from 
> shell scripts, and to monitor the kernel, again from shell scripts.  
> It's a good thing, actually, in that it preserves the best of the Unix 
> mentality:  don't re-invent, reuse.

I definately like this approach....

> The RIGHT tool to fix the problem is the pen, not the coding pad.  I 
> hereby pick up that pen and put forth version 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1 of the 
> Rules of /Proc:
> 
> 1)  IT SHOULD NOT BE PRETTY.  No tabs to line up columns.  No "progress 
> bars."  No labels except as "proc comments" (see later).  No in-line 
> labelling.

Tabs and/or multiple spaces should not be any harder to parse than
a single space, so I don't necessarily see the need to restrict them.

> 3)  All integral decimal values shall be assumed by both programs and 
> humans to consist of any number of bits.  [C'mon, people, dealing with 
> 64-bit or 128-bit numbers is NOT HARD.  If you don't know how, LEARN.  
> bc(1) can provide hints on how to do this -- use the Source, Luke.]  
> Numbers shall contain decimal digits [0-9] only.  Zero-padding is allowed.

Sometimes HEX is the best way to display things.  I think we should be
able to use 0xAABBCCDD type formatting.  The key here is to always prefix
with 0x so we can parse it correctly.

-- 
Ben Greear <[e-mail]>       <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc      http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD:  http://scry.wanfear.com     http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear