From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751468AbXDMCkT (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:40:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751648AbXDMCkT (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:40:19 -0400 Received: from mx33.mail.ru ([194.67.23.194]:16511 "EHLO mx33.mail.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbXDMCkR (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:40:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:36:59 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Shem Multinymous Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Paul Sokolovsky , Matthew Garrett , dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-discuss@handhelds.org Subject: Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class Message-ID: <20070413023659.GA17467@zarina> Reply-To: cbou@mail.ru References: <20070411232503.GC20095@zarina> <20070412130817.GA29900@srcf.ucam.org> <20070412141505.GA25552@zarina> <20070412142430.GA31240@srcf.ucam.org> <1734853889.20070412173626@gmail.com> <20070412185630.GC27804@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070412204413.GA3151@zarina> <20070413005112.GA20890@khazad-dum.debian.net> <41840b750704121934g2771cc0er308eb4f9c8a1cb80@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41840b750704121934g2771cc0er308eb4f9c8a1cb80@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:34:06PM -0400, Shem Multinymous wrote: > Hi, > > On 4/12/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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