Re: [PATCH] linuxabi

["Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" <filia@softhome.net>]

Andries Brouwer wrote:
> 
> Possibly. So we need discussion.
> 
> I have registered comment #1: Al prefers the enum style.
> A possibility.
> 
> Now you come with comment #2: write LINUX_MS_RDONLY instead of
> MS_RDONLY. You have not convinced me.
> 

   My 0.02 euro.

   LINUX_* - not right stuff. It makes a lot of sence to have the same 
name for same thing, even in different contexts. Or you are going to 
create a hell for some-one who may wish to make a documentation.

   Headers are going to be used in different context (hopefully) so 
would be no collisions (hopefully).

   Another question does GCC have something like C++'s namespace for C?
   That's would be good. Changing names - bad.

   And #define LINUX_NS(x) doesn't make sound - you will lose ability to 
grep over defines and [ce]tags will not work on this anymore. cpp is not
correct tool for namespace implementation.

-- 
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau  / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
--
   "... and for $64000 question, could you get yourself vaguely
      familiar with the notion of on-topic posting?"
				-- Al Viro @ LKML