Re: library name patch for 0.146

[P J P <prasad at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> It's not more convenient if you cannot recognize anything because the
> line is too long.

   Well, the fields are separated by space and recognizing them is not as 
difficult as you think it is. Besides I'm sure you do realise that one has 
no control over the line length, for it's a pure function of symbol name, 
which could be of *any* length. Adding 10-15 character library name to an 
already *long* line is not going to hamper it's readability as much as you 
think. And even if, let's say, it does to some extent, the cost of that 
long length and readability seems affordable when compared to the utility 
of the information and convenience it offers to the user, don't you think 
so?


> There is a reason why the information is split.

   I'm sure there is reason why information is split. But please don't 
overlook the fact that all the reasons and information split is not 
helping the user as much as it could.

Let's take a look at the information split, the .gnu_version section 
displayed by option -V shows

   Even symbol index: version index version name(library name)

Of which -s already gives us the version index and version name along with 
the symbol name, right? Then why leave library name in .gnu_version, when 
it could be of much more help seen next to a symbol name, just for the 
line length, seriously? No offence but that sounds like my friend's 
father-in-law who said he won't let his daughter marry my friend because 
he(my friend) is bald.


> And nobody is forcing you to use -s only.

  I know nobody is forcing me to use -s only. But as I said, using -sV 
together is not as convenient/easy option as you make it sound.

--
Regards
   - Prasad