On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:18 AM <dufa...@hda.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 29, 2021, at 10:57 , Sebastian Huber < > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > On 29/01/2021 15:29, dufa...@hda.com wrote: > > > >>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 09:13 , Sebastian Huber< > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> What's the rationale for "Demand"? Is that in use other places? > >>>> > >>>> It sounds odd to me, as if you're insisting the function provide > something that it might otherwise decide not to. > >>> "Get" was already used. This is a "Get" when we know the identifier is > valid. Do you have a better verb? > >>> > >> Valid_ID_Get? Or is that getting too wordy? > >> > >> I like "_ValID_" (i.e. use "ValID" in interface names for validated > IDs) but that must break the rules. > > > > What about: > > > > _Thread_Get_objects_information() -> > _Thread_Get_objects_information_by_id(Objects_Id) > > > > _Thread_Demand_objects_information() -> > _Thread_Get_objects_information(Thread_Control *) > > I like that. Since the interface change is internal to RTEMS the change > in the signature isn't a big deal, and "Get_*_by_id" can be used going > forward to imply the ID needs validation as opposed to getting it from a > valid Thread_Control. >
+1 > > I have to research the RTEMS naming convention. I know it must be > well-defined and not Random_case. > > it follows a pseudo-OOP: _Package_name_Class_name_Method_name Package is implied as _Supercore in the score. > Peter > ----------------- > Peter Dufault > HD Associates, Inc. Software and System Engineering > > This email is delivered through the public internet using protocols > subject to interception and tampering. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
