> On 1 Dec 2025, at 17:06, Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/1/2025 2:35 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 12/1/25 8:51 AM, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>>>> On 29 Nov 2025, at 18:30, Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> +#[repr(transparent)]
>>>> +pub struct ClistHead(Opaque<bindings::list_head>);
>>>
>>> I still think we should call this CList. IMHO, it does not make sense to
>>> have a
>>
>> I am guessing you meant to place this comment after Clist, rather than here
>> (after ClistHead)? Otherwise I don't know what you are actually suggesting?
>>
>>> Clist, and a ClistHead (notice the capitalization). CList and CListHead are
>>> easier to read and reason about.
>>>
>>> Did anyone push back on this?
>>
>> If you are simply recommending renaming:
>> Clist --> CList
>> ClistHead --> CListHead
>>
>> ...then I'd say "+1" for that suggestion.
>
> I am not fond of the suggestion but I don't oppose it either. I honestly don't
> like the triple capitalization with CListHead though. Lets see where all of us
> stand and then take a call on it. Opinions?
>
> Thanks.
Well, there are three things at play:
C, List, Head
So I think that the CListHead capitalization correctly describes it. IMHO
it’s hard to see “C” and “List” if you spell it
“Clist”, i.e.: it’s easier to read this as a single word and wonder
what’s that for a few seconds.
This is a bit of a nitpick though, so feel free to keep the old spelling if
there is no consensus here.
— Daniel
