mir_connection_create_surface

[Daniel van Vugt]

If you have any "beefs" with the client API, better to discuss and 
resolve them sooner than later.

Who knows when a major (incompatible) API revision will occur again.


On 23/04/13 13:34, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>