On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:19:23PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > Then on the question of IS_ prefix or not, I don't feel very strongly about > > it. IS_ has a nice parallel with HAS_ and IS_platform, but I agree it > > doesn't look the prettiest (IS_GT_GEN). So don't know, whatever the vote > > ends up being. > > okay, the HAS_ parallel is a good point... > > but still in that case my brain prefers > > if HAS_FEATURE > than > if FEATURE > > because "FEATURE what?" Like if feature was more "transitive" requiring > something else. > > while for "is" my brain prefers > > if PLATFORM > than > if IS_PLATFORM > > because here it seems more "intransitive"... > like... self contained meaning where "is" can be implicit.
for me both IS_PLATFORM and PLATFORM make sense. IS_ prefix is used in several other places for things like that. I just don't like the outcome of having it: gigantic horrendous macros like IS_GT_GEN_RANGE(). Lucas De Marchi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
