* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 10:12:12PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > and there's no such thing as a "token user" concept. There's an enum, > > one value of which is "TokenUser" and that's what we're asking the OS to > > provide us info about, but I'd argue that if we're going to refer to the > > textual enum representation then we should spell it just exactly as the > > enum has it. > > > > If we don't want to use "TokenUser" then I'd suggest that "user token" > > is a more accurate term to use, as we had before this change. There is > > no such thing as a "token user", as far as I'm aware, in GSSAPI, SSPI, > > or general access token lingo. > > "User token" has definitely been wrong. We already possess the user token at > the moments of these error messages, because we pass the user token as the > first GetTokenInformation() argument. We're retrieving information about the > "user" that pertains to a particular "token", hence "token user." A verbose > description is "could not get user associated with access token."
Ok, "user token information" would still be better than "token user" which has a completely different connotation, as I see it. > I see some advantages of writing "TokenUser", as you propose. However, our > error style guide says "Avoid mentioning called function names, either; > instead say what the code was trying to do." Mentioning an enumerator name is > morally similar to mentioning a function name. That's a fair point, but it doesn't mean we should use a different spelling for the enumerator name to avoid that piece of the policy. I certianly don't see "token user" as saying "what the code was trying to do" in this case. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature