Re: [hackers][ubase][tput] tput(1)

From: Lucas Vuotto <l.vuotto92_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:00:03 -0300

Hello FRIGN,

the patch is for ubase, not sbase, which, by definitio, is ugly :D

Anyway, what you say may still hold true. The patch could be smaller if we
only deal with clear, init and reset parameters, as stated by POSIX. This
come by my mind, but after asking in #suckless, just got an answer from ??,
telling my to go full ncurses tput (which reminds me, it only deals with
string capabilities now -- will fix if it gets merged).

As for the line count, I don't think it's possibly to make any library
dealing with terminfo smaller by a significant amount (say, 10% less
lines). Take in account that the library must provide a parser for a
context-free grammar.

Aside, maybe tput is too much for ubase. It's listed in the TODO, but I
don't know if it's really needed.

Concluding, I sent the patch so you can judge if it's worthless to merge or
no. It wasn't wasted time, because it helped me to find bugs in my library
:D

Cheers.


-- lv.


2016-05-22 16:08 GMT-03:00 FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>:
> On Sun, 22 May 2016 16:01:43 -0300
> Lucas Gabriel Vuotto <l.vuotto92_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Lucas,
>
>> attached you will find two patches, one implementing a basic library for
dealing
>> with terminfo capabilities and another implementing the tput command
using that
>> library. The library itself is part of a bigger library from me, damned
[0], for
>> TUI creation.
>
>> 9 files changed, 2179 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> :O
>
> definitely too much man.
>
> If we look at sbase, it has the following SLOC-count:
>
> Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
> ansic: 18805 (97.57%)
> awk: 255 (1.32%)
> sh: 213 (1.11%)
>
> do you really think it's a good idea to increase its size
> by roughly 10% to accomodate one single command?
>
> Cheers
>
> FRIGN
>
> --
> FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
>
Received on Sun May 22 2016 - 23:00:03 CEST