lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Rostedt
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300
> Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive
> > > even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar
> > > checker. ;)
> >
> > How about yeslist and nolist? ;-)
>
> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
>
> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...

I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words,
yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
model of what the code is going to do.

-- Tim

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-07 18:02    [W:0.102 / U:7.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site