Client API pedantism
thomas.voss at canonical.com
Mon Apr 8 08:01:27 UTC 2013
On 08.04.2013 09:47, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> Strictly following the convention feels a bit clunky, like the function
> names become too long:
I would rather prefer expressive and complete names adhering to
convention, even if they are clunky. And the amount of typing required
in this case is manageable from my pov.
> One way around this, as you'll see in other APIs, is to bend the rules
> for construction and use "mir_create_surface".
> I think any of the above approaches are better than "mir_surface_create".
> On 08/04/13 15:34, Alexandros Frantzis wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:30:48PM +1200, Robert Ancell wrote:
>>> On 08/04/13 15:16, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure I'd go as far as proposing a change to the above function
>>>> any time soon. But it's worth keeping consistency in mind for future
>>>> API additions.
>>>> - Daniel
>>> I say it's not something that needs to fixed immediately, but can be
>>> migrated over before 1.0.
>> I would say better sooner than later... The more we wait, the more
>> instances of the unwanted function name we will have, both in our code
>> and in foreign code, and the more difficult it will be for us to amend
>> them all.
More information about the Mir-devel