XXX_register or register_XXX
Is there an accepted standard on naming for registration functions? If have a foo
object that other things can register and unregister with, should the function names be:
int register_foo(&something);
int unregister_foo(&something);
- or -
int foo_register(&something);
int foo_unregister(&something);
-rustyl
Quoted 5 lines
Is there an accepted standard on naming for registration functions? If have a foo object that other things can register and unregister with, should the function names be:
intfoo_register(&something);
intfoo_unregister(&something);
really, that would make the entire kernel code a little simplier to understand.
On the same way, we can say why there is not an accepted standard on naming lock functions, such as
spinlock, rwlock and so on..
That would be more efficient to understand the code... However, where is flexibility?
-hd
Quoted 3 lines · Rusty Lynch
Is there an accepted standard on naming for registration functions? If have a foo object that other things can register and unregister with, should the function names be:
I do not think there is an accepted practice here.
Quoted 2 lines
int
register_foo(&something);
intunregister_foo(&something);
I bet this is more common.
Quoted 2 lines
int
foo_register(&something);
intfoo_unregister(&something);
But I prefer this - I like there to be a namespace for a given subsystem and for it to be a prefix.
Robert Love
Em Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:08:28PM -0500, Robert Love escreveu:
Quoted 6 lines · Rusty Lynch
Quoted 2 lines
int
foo_register(&something);
intfoo_unregister(&something);But I prefer this - I like there to be a namespace for a given subsystem and for it to be a prefix.
100% agreed. Just look at LLC 8) And yes, the big names was procom's fault, but the way it is structured... I'd love somebody to come up with something that makes it smaller 8)
- Arnaldo