From: M. OReilly <moreilly_at_moreilly.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 08:40:49 -0400

Heh. I knew when I was typing it that the .ini was a bad example... I just
couldn't think of a better one at 1:00 in the morning. :-) I guess the
point I was driving at was that a string of characters in a particular
setting isn't that useful unless one knows what each parameter refers to.
What I was trying to suggest was having each parameter labelled so one can
find it easily, even if that person doesn't know what they're looking for.
Linus' example:

F2=show_wps,down,500,yes,no,yes

has six parameters, and the uninitiated might have no idea what they
control.

It could be done in documentation, to be sure. But how many people actually
read documentation? (Or FAQs, for that matter... ;-) It would also be a
tremendous waste of space, I know, to label each setting individually, but I
think it might be worth it in the long run, and we're not exactly short on
space.

But, like you say, it's not the conf file that's the hard part...

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se [mailto:owner-rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se]On
Behalf Of Björn Stenberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:26 AM
To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
Subject: Re: user editable keys binding schemes wanted


M. OReilly wrote:
> The system won't care, but is there any reason we shouldn't do
> a traditional Windows-style .ini format?

Yes, because it's a silly format.

I'm all for user-editable config files (I'm a unix guy, after all) but the
.ini format is just plain stupid. It needlessly introduces states in the
config parsing, confusing both programmers and users.

I dare promise that all config files we ever use will be user-editable ASCII
files. But they will not be in .ini format.

--
Björn

Received on 2002-10-02