mir_connection_create_surface

[Christopher James Halse Rogers]

On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 16:33 +1200, Robert Ancell wrote:
> On 23/04/13 16:09, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> > I know I proposed this, but it feels ugly:
> >    mir_connection_create_surface
> >
> > And other people have mentioned the same.
> >
> > What do people think about making construction a special case, like:
> >    mir_create_surface
> > ?
> >
> > I know tvoss did not like this. But what do other people think?
> >
> I like mir_connection_create_surface - it's consistent with the other
> names and it's not likely to be used enough to warrant abbreviating.
> 

Seconded. I've got my beefs with the client API, but this isn't one of
them. It's verbose, but not annoyingly so, and surface creation is
infrequent.