* James Carlson <james.d.carlson at Sun.COM> [2007-06-01 09:34]: > Tim Marsland writes: > > Well it certainly satisfies my architectural concern. > > > > However, I wonder if there's a useful precedent to set here > > w.r.t. the names of properties that are intended to be used > > this way e.g. prefix with a '.' or '__' -- a shorthand > > for the very low committment level. > > If you later find that you need to raise the commitment level (perhaps > because it turns out to be a more common problem than originally > anticipated), then you end up having to do extra work to scrub away > the commitment level from the variable name, and potentially issuing > either patches or confusing documentation for it.
Aliases just aren't that hard. > Though I can see some value to it (easy to grep for "bad" usages over > all drivers), I think I'd rather have that sort of meta information in > the man page than in the code. But if it's something that doesn't have a manpage entry because its committment level and expectation-of-usage is so low, it seems a bit odd to create an entry simply so we can say "don't rely on this," on the offchance that we might want to raise the committment level later?? We should have a manpage entry when we raise the committment level. tim
