Re: [PATCH 1/5] cfgfile: configurable comment character

["Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Legacy, Allain [mailto:Allain.Legacy@windriver.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 12:14 PM
> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>; Yuanhan Liu
> <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jolliffe, Ian (Wind River) <ian.jolliffe@windriver.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] cfgfile: configurable comment character
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dumitrescu, Cristian [mailto:cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com]
>  > Both approaches can support this. Therefore, IMO the separator char is
> not
> > enough to justify approach 1. I would only go for approach 1 if there are
> > some other parameters that we could consider adding to the load function
> > now or later. Do you see any?
> 
> No, I don't have any future parameters in mind but that doesn't mean that
> none will arise eventually.   IMO, the comment character should be specified
> as an actual "char" in the rte_cfgfile_params.  Specifying it as a flag is a bit
> kludgy - I don't like overloading a flag/enum to specify something that
> already has a type that can be used (char).   Also, I don't think we need to
> control which comment characters are valid.  If the app wants to use a 'X'
> then that's their choice.
> 
> 

I disagree here. I think we must control the set of allowed separators to avoid confusion.