Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:27:44 +0100 | From | Cornelia Huck <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation. |
| |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:40:45 +1100, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 04:39:12PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > 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.... > > Yeah, local is sounds ok - it's certainly more obvious > that it's a scope modifier for the synchronisation primitive.
Hm, I don't like _local too much. How about _subset, or _context, or _scope?
| |