Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Jan 2009 04:52:42 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] async: Add some documentation. |
| |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:27:44 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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?
or _domain ?
and phrase stuff such that you have synchronization domains?
-- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |