On (08/23/07 12:30), James Carlson wrote: > > If they're to be respected at all, private properties have to be weird > and local.
I think we are all in agreement about that! > Thus, I don't think it makes sense to worry much about promotion or > the disruption it would cause. It _does_ make sense, though, to make > sure that users can be aware that they're touching bits that might rot > over time. Naming (as in the link_* scheme) could be part of that. and in keeping with the "weird and local" spirit, I'm proposing that their namespace be a little weird too - is there any objection to requiring that names of private properties start with "_" (the underscore)? fwiw, Meem's comment about the public-ness of wifi properties made me realize that it may not always be easy for drivers to estimate which property names have already been used for the public ones. So starting private property names with "_" will help keep the two groups apart. --Sowmini
