On 02.01.2013 03:02, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 12:05:04AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:37:38AM +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: >>> В Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:42:04 +0000 >>> Colin Watson <cjwat...@ubuntu.com> пишет: >>>> * If a hook requires more than one local variable from its parent >>>> function, declare "struct <name-of-parent>_ctx" with the necessary >>>> variables, and convert both the hook and the parent to access the >>>> variables in question via that structure. >>> >>> Personally I find "ctx" part a bit confusing. It is not really execution >>> context in usual sense, it is just collection of random variables. I >>> would rather go with "struct <name-of-parent>_data" here. >> >> I'm fine with that (and this is exactly why I posted this for a bit of a >> bikeshedding opportunity :-) ). Vladimir, any opinions on the naming? > > Actually, "*_data" is suboptimal because (particularly in filesystem > code) there are many other variables and types called "data". How about > "*_vars"? Then I can use "struct foo_vars *vars = data;" or similar as > well and it should work out reasonably well. >
I feel like "_ctx" is a good one. It is the executional context, it's just trimmed to what we really need. -- Regards Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
