Hi Denis, > >>> @@ -658,6 +703,11 @@ void g_at_ppp_set_server_info(GAtPPP *ppp, const > >>> char *remote, > >>> ipcp_set_server_info(ppp->ipcp, r, d1, d2); > >>> } > >>> > >>> +void g_at_ppp_set_acfc_enabled(GAtPPP *ppp) > >> > >> I really do want the signature to be g_at_ppp_set_acfc_enabled(GAtPPP > >> *ppp, gboolean enabled) > >> > >> There are cases where we might re-use the PPP object with different > >> parameters. > > > > what is wrong with just g_at_ppp_set_acfc(GAtPPP *ppp, gboolean enabled) > > as function name. Duplicating enabled in the function name and as > > parameter seems to be bit odd. > > For APIs I generally prefer: > > _set_foo() when foo is a 'thing', e.g int/string/struct/etc > > and _set_foo_enabled() when foo is on/off as that intent is clearer when > reading the code.
fair enough. However we have not been 100% consistent then here. g_at_server_set_echo() g_at_hdlc_set_no_carrier_detect() Both look at bit fishy with this API intention. Should we fix them as well then while at it? Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
