On Nov 22, 2005, at 11:39 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
What about alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c_setup()? That would highlight that its an
but this really makes and object called [alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c] impossible!
The setup function would then be alt_alt_0x3c0x3c0x3c_setup(), so it would be possible.
alternate name, rather than just having an seemingly arbitrary reversal of the "setup" placement. And the function is called sys_load_lib_alt(). That makes more sense in terms of the API.
well calling it sys_load_lib_alt() was a very fast decision (so i am not proud of it). i still think that the alternative setup function should be called fundamentally differently, so that it is impossible to make an object with a normal setup-function that is named like the alternative function of another object.
How about sys_load_lib_hex() and hex_blahblah_setup()
but probably it would be nice to hear somebody else's opinion on this (at least from those who are not entirely bored of this thread)
Definitely!
.hc
mfg.ads.r IOhannes
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"The arc of history bends towards justice." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.