On 02/06/2020 15.22, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Rasmus,
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 03:13, Rasmus Villemoes rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk wrote:
On 31/05/2020 16.07, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Rasmus,
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 16:01, Rasmus Villemoes rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk wrote:
[..]
+int do_rtc(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) +{
static int curr_rtc = 0;struct udevice *dev;int ret, idx;if (argc < 2)return CMD_RET_USAGE;argc--;argv++;if (!strcmp(argv[0], "list")) {It is comment in U-Boot to just check the letters that are needed. So here you could do (*argv[0] == 'l')
Yes, and I consider that an anti-pattern. It makes it impossible to later introduce another (sub)command which starts with a previously-unique prefix. Now, if that "just type a unique prefix" wasn't official, so scripts were always supposed to use the full names, it wouldn't be that big a problem (scripts written for later versions of U-Boot, or U-Boots configured with more (sub)commands, could still fail silently if used on an earlier U-Boot or one with fewer (sub)commands instead of producing a "usage" error message), but https://www.denx.de/wiki/view/DULG/UBootCommandLineInterface explicitly mentions that as a feature (and says h can be used for help, which it can't when the hash command is built in, perfectly exemplifying what I'm talking about).
Hah funny. Using an abbreviation is only possible if no other command starts with the same leters.
It is certainly very risky to use abbreviations in scripts. I would not recommend it. Abbreviations are for interactive use. If you have auto-completion on you can use tab.
Exactly, so the ability to use the abbreviated form doesn't really buy anything - it's risky in scripts, and interactively, it merely saves a tab keystroke (and that's all lost in the cognitive overhead of having to remember just what abbrev is enough).
But here we are talking about a sub-command, which is a bit more controlled, in that it doesn't depend on what other commands the user enables.
True, but the same point applies; if I allowed "rtc w", one couldn't easily later add an "rtc wobble" subcommand (ok, my imagination is lacking, but you get the idea).
Anyway, it's up to you what you want to do here.
In that case I'll keep checking for the full name of subcommands.
Thanks, Rasmus