On August 24, 2014 7:28:32 AM EDT, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: >On 24/08/2014 6:57 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> On 08/24/2014 05:02 AM, Chris Johns wrote: >>> >>> The calls names make sense from a programming point of view but from >a >>> user point of view they are sort of forwards and backwards. For >>> example rtems_clock_ticks_later_us is the "the clock tick so many >>> micro-seconds later where later implies now" or >>> 'rtems_clock_tick_usecs_later' and following this I suppose >>> 'rtems_clock_ticks_later' becomes 'rtems_clock_tick_ticks_later' ? >> >> What about rtems_clock_tick_later() and rtems_clock_tick_before()? In >> the context it should be clear what they do, e.g. >> > >Fine.
Would initiate/finalize or begin/end have more meaning? We used to have rtems_initialize_early and late and they were hard to explain. These seem to bracket a series of operations rather than to be a multiple stage process. >Chris >_______________________________________________ >devel mailing list >devel@rtems.org >http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
