>>>> >>So, in principle I'm fine with all your BACKTRACE_* variants (except >>>> >>for _splurge, maybe;) >>>> >> >>>> >>Or, why not just (plain and simple) "BACKTRACE"? >>> >>> >The name is the same as backtrace() in glibc, but otherwise, sure why >>> >not. _show/_print might be preferable in the sense that they convey >>> >that stuff will be directly printed on the screen, rather than, say, >>> >the procedure returning an array of strings with the stack trace info. >> >> Agreed. Let's go with BACKTRACE_SHOW. > > I have to admit that I prefer show_backtrace to backtrace_show, which sounds > a bit clumsy. I also don't think that finding show_backtrace is more > difficult than finding backtrace_show. "backtrace" is in the index, looking > at the documentation, one can still search for "backtrace" and search > engines should find "backtrace" in either way. (A name which comes just into > my mind is: "backtrace_now()"; I am not claiming that it is better than any > of the others.)
Look, I really don't care if we call it APOCALYPSE_NOW or SERGEANT_FUZZY_BOOTS, as long as it prints a proper backtrace! If we can not agree on any name here, we could just open a doodle poll to decide this by democratic vote ...?!? Cheers, Janus
