On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28/06/11 22:32, Allan McRae wrote: >> >> On 28/06/11 22:17, Dan McGee wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Allan McRae<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> After discussion here and on IRC, it was decided that rather than >>>> changing the one struct from alpm_foo_t to pmfoo_t for consistency, >>>> it would instead be better to rename all the other structs to follow >>>> the alpm_foo_t scheme. Given we are pushing towards 4.0, now is the >>>> best (only?) time to do this. >>>> >>>> I am not going to send the enitre patchset here as that would just be >>>> overkill. Take a look at the patches in my repo: >>>> http://projects.archlinux.org/users/allan/pacman.git/log/?h=breakshit >>> >>> Two observations: >>> 1. Where is pmpkg_t? >> >> In with pmtrans_t for some reason... will fix! >> >>> 2. Does anyone else find "grp" kind of silly? pkg is ubiquitous and at >>> least less than 50% of the length of package, but I might propose >>> shifting the type name to "alpm_group_t". >> >> Seems reasonable to me. I can adjust this. >> > > Do we want function names with "grp" in them to be changed too? e.g. > alpm_option_add_ignoregrp, alpm_db_readgrp, alpm_db_get_grpcache, etc... > That can come in a separate patchset.
Yeah, I forgot to bring that into the discussion- 100% agree with just a subsequent patch adjusting these names. Not sure if you want them to be like 'ignoregroup' or 'ignore_group', 'groupcache' or 'group_cache', etc. -Dan
