On 03/11/2016 12:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>> time to change our naming convention; we can instead use the 'q_' >>>> prefix that we reserved for ourselves back in commit 9fb081e0. As >>>> long as we don't declare 'empty' or 'obj' ticklish, it shouldn't >>>> clash with c_name() prepending 'q_' to the user's ticklish names. >>> >>> Do we really want to rename :empty? We're not going to generate C for >>> it, are we? >> >> No, but it was easier to implement .is_implicit() as >> "name.startswith('q_')" than as "name == ':empty' or >> name.startswith('q_obj')". I can stick with :empty if you want a >> respin, though. > > You avoid complicating .is_implicit() slightly, and you pay for that > with a bit of patch churn elsewhere. Sounds justified. > > Is ':empty' the last use of the ':' prefix?
Yes. And renaming it to 'q_empty' meant I didn't have to add ':' to the set of characters to be transliterated in c_name(). -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature