On 13 May 2014 17:59, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My only comment around the actual names is that 'process' doesnt > >> immediately make me think 'name' and even seems a little like it could > be > >> describing the same thing as 'pid' if you didnt know both properties > >> existed, which I have always thought about the older versions too. That > >> isn't to say I necessarily have a good alternative suggestion, the only > >> short one I could think of was 'pname' :) > >> > > > > How about process_name and process_id then? > > > I like those. I don't think brevity is important in this case, and those > names are very clear to me. >
Works for me too. (replying to Justin's mail because I haven't received Gordon's one yet!) > Out of curiosity, is there any interest in offering the command line (a la > "process_command_line")? The arguments passed to a process can often be > used to distinguish it from others quickly. > That might open up some issues, requiring consideration if anything on the command line needs sanitized.
