Re: [PATCH v5 03/36] qapi-gen: Separate arg-parsing from generation

[Markus Armbruster]

John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

> On 10/8/20 2:51 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> It can be executed by any process.  See execve(2):
>>
>>         pathname must be either a binary executable, or a script starting  
>> with
>>         a line of the form:
>>             #!interpreter [optional-arg]
>>         For details of the latter case, see "Interpreter scripts"
>> below.
>>
>> "Entry point" makes sense in Python context, "script entry point" also
>> makes sense (since every Python program is a script, script is
>> redundant, but not wrong).  "Shell script entry point" is misleading.
>
> You know, I don't think I was actually explicitly aware that the #!
> shebang was not something the shell actually processed itself. Always 
> learning new things.
>
> (No, I don't think I have ever execve'd something that wasn't a binary.)

I'm sure you've done it countless times, just not knowingly :)

> "entry point" is a little vague, an entry point for what? by whom? I
> was trying to call attention to the idea specifically that main() was 
> intended as python's "console script entry point", but used the word
> "shell" instead.
>
> "console script entrypoint" is also a lot of jargon. What I really

It is.

If I didn't find "console script" so thoroughly misguided, I'd advie you
to stick to it just because it's what we found in Python's docs.  It's
misguided, because this entry point is the one and only entry point for
*any* kind of Python executable program, be it console, GUI, or
whatever.

> want to communicate is: "When you run `qapi-gen` on your command-line,
> this is the function that runs!"
>
> So I guess something like:
>
> "qapi-gen executable entry point." will suffice. Please further adjust
> to your liking when staging.

Works for me.