Am Montag, 21. Juli 2003 23:26 schrieb David Brownell:Although I don't know the exact context of all this, would the best naming be the most appropriate negative.
Alan Stern wrote:
As far as names go, maybe we can all agree on usb_unbind_driver_interface().
How about drop the "driver", since nothing else gets unbound? And the "usb_" prefix, since it's internal to usbcore? So: unbind_interface().
Then better usb_unbind_interface(). The convention of dropping the prefix for internal functions has lost a lot of appeal with the introduction of the generic driver model. IMHO the ability to tell them apart quickly and easily is more important.
Regards Oliver
e.g.
usb_bind_interface()
and the function that reverses it:
usb_unbind_interface()
usb_register_interface() usb_unregister_interface()
etc.
That should deal with any possible confusion.
Cheers James
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
