Jeff Squyres, le Mon 22 Nov 2010 15:56:09 +0100, a écrit : > Hmm, yes, this is a good topic. I think we had this discussion a while ago
Yes, we have, and we had thought p would be enough, but apparently it is not. > -- using "p" is a good way to indicate "physical". But IIRC, we didn't like > "l" (for "logical") because it looks too much like 1 (one). > > I think we're open to having some kind of indication to denote "logical" > instead of "physical" -- any suggestions? Perhaps P and L (vs. p and l)? P/L can be better than p/l, yes. Just "PU #0" is indeed probably not precise enough, and "PU L#0" will make people wonder why the L, and then understand why. I guess we can try to add this to an rc4. Samuel
