Re: [PATCH_v3 1/4] GAtPPP: Add ACFC option support

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]

Hi Denis,

> >>> @@ -658,6 +703,11 @@ void g_at_ppp_set_server_info(GAtPPP *ppp, const char *remote,
> >>>  	ipcp_set_server_info(ppp->ipcp, r, d1, d2);
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>> +void g_at_ppp_set_acfc_enabled(GAtPPP *ppp)
> >>
> >> I really do want the signature to be g_at_ppp_set_acfc_enabled(GAtPPP
> >> *ppp, gboolean enabled)
> >>
> >> There are cases where we might re-use the PPP object with different
> >> parameters.
> > 
> > what is wrong with just g_at_ppp_set_acfc(GAtPPP *ppp, gboolean enabled)
> > as function name. Duplicating enabled in the function name and as
> > parameter seems to be bit odd.
> 
> For APIs I generally prefer:
> 
> _set_foo() when foo is a 'thing', e.g int/string/struct/etc
> 
> and _set_foo_enabled() when foo is on/off as that intent is clearer when
> reading the code.

fair enough.

However we have not been 100% consistent then here.

g_at_server_set_echo()
g_at_hdlc_set_no_carrier_detect()

Both look at bit fishy with this API intention. Should we fix them as
well then while at it?

Regards

Marcel