Hi Yong > I thought you'd say that. :) > Ok, I get it - I did think of those things as well although coming to > a different conclusion. However, just consider this... > > > [...] > > I agree with your reasons above, but this is a setter associated with > a struct member, and the struct member is called global_filter. As such, > it seems congruent to call the setter set_global_filter. > (Or maybe rename the struct member to filter_global? Perhaps that would > bring the naming inline with the reasons that you stated above, plus > it matches the setter name.)
Considering that I am not a native English speaker myself, I shall abide by your initial comments and use "global_filter" instead (and the other changes you suggested as well), it's not big deal really, as long as we remain consistent and can land those patches eventually :-) While at it, I'll include the changes suggested by Jonas as well, ie test the bind on a filtered global. Cheers, Olivier _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
