From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 30 00:14:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA02999 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:14:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles148.castles.com [208.214.165.148]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA02994 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:14:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA01726 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:13:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199810300813.AAA01726@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: scanf in the kernel? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:13:48 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Just wondering what the general feeling would be about having scanf in the kernel? As we move towards more abstract representations of things (eg. device names), it's becoming more important to be able to parse strings inside the kernel. Doing this in hand-rolled code is tedious, error-prone and results in code that can be hard to read and maintain (as everyone does it their own way). If this isn't totally repulsive, I'll roll a somewhat smaller version of the libc vfscanf for general approval. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message