On 12 December 2017 at 23:13, Jo-Philipp Wich 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.
Hi,
On 12 December 2017 at 23:05, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Rafał,
>
> in principle fine with me - but I guess all restrictions will be in the
> form { : true } so I'd rather make it an array.
>
> Also since a restriction implies something not possible, I'd drop the
> "no_" prefix too. So in th
Hi Rafał,
in principle fine with me - but I guess all restrictions will be in the
form { : true } so I'd rather make it an array.
Also since a restriction implies something not possible, I'd drop the
"no_" prefix too. So in the end it would look like:
{
"channel": 1,
"mhz": 2412,
"restrict
On 15 August 2017 at 12:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki
>
> Example frequency:
> {
> "channel": 1,
> "mhz": 2412,
> "restricted": false,
> "active": false,
> "restrictions": {
> "no_ht40minus": true,
> "no_80mh
From: Rafał Miłecki
Example frequency:
{
"channel": 1,
"mhz": 2412,
"restricted": false,
"active": false,
"restrictions": {
"no_ht40minus": true,
"no_80mhz": true
}
}
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki
---
iwinfo.c | 17
