Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:39:12 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation. |
| |
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:24:50 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Rather than polishing a turd, can we rename this "special" stuff to > > something more descriptive? I'm not the only person to complain > > about this. How about async_schedule_list()? > > > > After all, async_schedule_list() describes *exactly* how it is > > different to async_schedule(), while the "_special" keywords really > > suck when you consider code is supposed to be self documenting.... > > async_schedule_list() sounds better, agreed, but I'd prefer to change > that in a seperate patch.
I had it as that at first. But it is ugly; naming a function after its arguments is useless; it should be named after what it does instead.
I buy that "special" is not a good name. Would "local" be better? The name needs to convey that it is for a specific synchronization context....
-- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |