On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:23:12PM -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:10:57AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes: > > > > > I'd also note that the use of "parent" in the code is also > > > ambiguous. It can mean: > > > > > > * QOM parent type, i.e. TypeInfo.parent. Related fields: > > > * parent_class members of class structs > > > * parent_obj members of object structs > > > > I hate the use of "parent" and "child" for a super- / subtype relation. > > > > Correcting the terminology there would be short term pain for long term > > gain. Worthwhile? > > I don't know. It looks like the terminology came from GObject.
One day I would love it if we got QOM to actually use GObject, so from that POV I'd be inclined to stick with the "parent" term. Personally I've not seen a problem with the term "parent" in this scenario. The class inheritance metaphor maps reasonably clearly to a parent/child metaphor. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
