Hi! > > What do you think? > > Due to its known meaning "ng" is as bad a name as "new" or "next", > because it will loose this meaning in the foreseeable future.
Star Trek TNG hasn't lost its meaning even after twenty years... But I'm
really not in favor of any particular name.
> I'm not sure if naming is necessary at all. I think public/shared
> headers can be used without a problem, and non-default implementations
> (I assume the current "ng" implementation will be the default)
> can as well get a characterizing suffix like "_light" or "_tiny" if
> and when they arrive.
As long as there are only headers to be shared, no problem, but for functions
it's getting more complicated.
Cheers,
Oleg
--
/* When we have more time, we can teach the penguin to say
* "By your command" or "Activating turbo boost, Michael".
*/
linux-2.2.16/arch/sparc/prom/sun4prom.c
pgpbGtaOCH3qM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
