Re: [PATCH 2/2] clock_nanosleep.2, nanosleep.2: Use 'duration' rather than 'request'

enh
2024-03-05T22:22:32Z

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 5:11 PM Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 04:56:13PM -0800, enh wrote:
> > > > int clock_nanosleep(clockid_t __clock, int __flags, const struct
> > > > timespec* _Nonnull __time, struct timespec* _Nullable __remainder);
> > >
> > > Hmmmm, that's the best name, meaningfully, I think. But I've been
> > > trying to avoid it. I don't like using names of standard functions in
> > > identifiers; it might confuse. As an alternative, I thought of 't'.
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > as you can see, i've taken the "the leading `__` means we get to
> > trample whatever we like" approach :-)
> >
> > (we build bionic with hidden visibility and an explicit list of
> > symbols for the linker to export, so we'd have to be trying quite hard
> > to trip over ourselves.)
>
> Yeah, I was worried about the manual page :)

yeah, i think "t + extra text" makes sense there. i just try to be as
brief as possible in the doc comments on the assumption that most
readers will be seeing them in IDE pop-ups, and anyone who wants lots
of text will click through to the man page anyway. and at that point
they're your problem :-)

> --
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
> Looking for a remote C programming job at the moment.