On 12/1/2025 6:01 PM, Daniel Almeida wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
No problem, I'll change it to CList/CListHead considering John and Miguel also
felt this is better. So I am the odd one out here :)
Thanks.
