Artem Kachitchkine wrote: > >> I think having an established syntax for private link properties is >> needed. I don't think we should add things like "nports" as reserved >> field name, as those names set probably would be expanded even further >> while more and more classes of links are supported. > > Would those names have to start with an underscore? Could we reserve the > leading underscore for private properties? > We could enforce this - that other field names must not start with underscore. But what I am thinking is that in general, we should treat *private* link properties differently, therefore we probably should add a reserved naming prefix for all link properties (when writing them to the private configuration file and stripping the prefix when reading them from the file).
Team, Do you have any opinion on this? > What kind syntax do you have in mind? Today it's just a key=value list. > > 1 > name=string,bge0;class=int,1;media=int,4;phyinst=int,1;phymaj=int,162;devname=string,bge0; > > > > Changing file format just for private properties (the use of which we > officially discourage) seems like an overkill. > I agree. Thanks - Cathy > -Artem
