Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

[Anton Vorontsov <cbou@mail.ru>]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:34:06PM -0400, Shem Multinymous wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 4/12/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> >> * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen
> >>   objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous:
> >>
> >>   "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using
> >>   the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging.
> >>   Hence:
> >>   s/charge_rate/rate/;  s/charge/capacity/"
> >>
> >>   But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner
> >>   if we'll drop "capacity" at all.
> >
> >I stand with Shem on this one.  The people behind the SBS specification
> >seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still
> >avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for
> >confusion.
> >
> >I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets
> >woudl make of it...
> 
> With fixed-units files, having *_energy and *_capacity isn't too clear
> either... Nor is it consistent with SBS, since SBS uses "capacity" to
> refer to either energy or charge, depending on a units attribute.
> 
> As a compromise, how about using "energy" and "charge" for quantities,
> and "charging" (i.e., a verb) when referring to the operation?

It would be great compromise! Please please please!

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbou@mail.ru
backup email: ya-cbou@yandex.ru
irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2