Hi, On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:20:27PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:32PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:21:33PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: > > > /run is more obvious than /mem to me as its intended use is similar to > > > /var/run which is clearly defined. > > > > That's true, but /mem can be just as clearly defined, as shown earlier. > > I'd prefer to name things based on their intended purpose than on their > intended implementation. The former allows you more flexibility when you > come up with a better implementation later, or when it turns out that > your intended implementation isn't possible due to local constraints. True, that's the general rule. However, as /mem refers more to properties more than implementation, I don't think it's much of a problem, especially because the most prominent properties that /mem refers to by association, are hard requirements to fulfill the intended purpose. Another rule in my book is that if you can either solve a problem with something very specific or just as elegantly with something generic, you shouldn't limit the creativity of the people that come after you, and choose the more general solution. /mem can both be used for the things we're finding a solution for, the /early-writable-and-always-cleared-but-more-general-variant-of-var-run, and for things that we cannot forsee yet. If you always want to name things after their purpose instead of their properties, you make it more awkward to use those things to be used for other purposes, even if they turn out to be a perfect fit. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen emile@e-advies.nl tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Attachment:
pgpTskz84PHEV.pgp
Description: PGP signature