Hi, On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 05:12:55PM +0200, Oleg Hahm wrote: > After thinking just for some minutes over a new name for the stack, I thought > that "NG" (pronounced Angie? ;)) may be not a bad idea after all and would > save us from quite some renaming... All we would have to do then is to extract > the common functionality and move it generic IPv6 and co. files. > > What do you think?
Due to its known meaning "ng" is as bad a name as "new" or "next", because it will loose this meaning in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure if naming is necessary at all. I think public/shared headers can be used without a problem, and non-default implementations (I assume the current "ng" implementation will be the default) can as well get a characterizing suffix like "_light" or "_tiny" if and when they arrive. Cheers, Ludwig _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
