On 12 December 2017 at 23:13, Jo-Philipp Wich <j...@openwrt.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I'd argue the no_ prefix makes it more clear that these restrictions
>> say what is prohibited, not what is allowed.
>
> What about calling it "prohibit" instead of "restrictions" then? That
> would make it both terse and unambiguous.
Make it "prohibitions" (or "prohibited") and fine by me. I'm no native
speaker though, so if anyone could step in if I say crap that would be
helpful.
Not calling it "restrictions" also avoids the awkwardness of the
channel not being restricted ("restricted: false") but having
restrictions, which somewhat contradicts itself on a first glance.
Regards
Jonas
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
