From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BDE82248A3; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 18:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754332206; cv=none; b=r5mEgfWZsxp7Pp6uV5vsL7IAvw7pgPE23GFHVztJPwUqycc11KGJPUbyD4VW1blQeIztlv4DZnB0vgbhbaWKO1s8jM/HXqbfrEOvp5KmygDTxbCZGXpWTyuLYV03WUNSTJymYPF2X4fLC4Wnpvl7lXQoiDbLKmtDDu1MmeUGVa8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754332206; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uJ/oOV5Bf1tX4cFJNMtJsUew/SY8AbI/2NnYXzLpDgg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=R0qtgOk+gXLHrlxc6HyDjL2ZqI0u3cXv35JvHzbBgzfvTvv3YHA/XicVZUVgGxOZepE5FHCMA38kIYemNgrISsn1fOe/292j5m21zNlYm8BateIu+WF5ySAK8milsf2OdhdyQ/BbH8FbW9wZ2NlgR3NZqYvYA+a2cz9XZvjCwkU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=s+HuYPD1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="s+HuYPD1" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 3F56C40AD7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1754332194; bh=HSp20fpXz0BSrhqJCgCQtB3PUB1/kgFx4skx2uINIgY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=s+HuYPD12YdNeaEApq21R4UvoWmAKZst50BTI+b0wym/Ve7yy4sxHMkU9xBu+vXQs Uwy6QQFMZQ87Ys/LukWN0APBeLi3R4cnjUp0JGeSkkUSnZANHGsnTayqRyGl7mAx2j erHiUPvWm/2QR0lC0PvrZ04unvR54cTBTwa+HWxtJ8pKIikgGzL4MB6fp8V9BCbuON hns8HHcGb1EQsk2lJ4mPjtNQJh5WfpuCv+czoguKAy/dMmuoJ9crDmQbM3elMfiZu0 767w4QLaYceIcLc4A326yLmy+gCsVGARBguw6SPxBDH8Ntrmtqw1RWq+vKGnaFY+a0 87D7swpDZwJgw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9:67c:16ff:fe81:5f9b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F56C40AD7; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 18:29:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] docs: kdoc: backslashectomy in kdoc_parser In-Reply-To: <20250804180029.11b8c310@sal.lan> References: <20250801001326.924276-1-corbet@lwn.net> <20250801001326.924276-4-corbet@lwn.net> <20250801062710.552dac5a@foz.lan> <87h5yrruki.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <20250804145818.3cc73ca2@foz.lan> <20250804180029.11b8c310@sal.lan> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2025 12:29:53 -0600 Message-ID: <8734a7ndni.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > In time: I mean *possible* POSIX violations. > > I very much prefer more backslashs than needed or use re.escape() > than to read thoughtfully POSIX and Python-specific specific rules. > > Python, in particular, is not very reliable between versions - each > new version comes with a set of incompatible changes. People like to complain about that ... but the LWN site code has been in Python since 2002, and with the notable exception of the Python 3 transition, it has been really painless. FWIW, the 3.13 re module will warn if it sees a construction like "[[]" - evidently there is a possible future change that might make "[[" mean something special and new. So I avoided that combination. > In summary, if you agree with always escape brackets, curly brackets and > parenthesis inside brackets on kernel-doc, we should be free of not > opened/not closed "symbols" with is an annoyance at least for me, and > we should be freed of possible POSIX issues and undefined behavior(*). It shall be a mighty struggle, but I think I can find a way to live with that... :) Thanks, jon