Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology
"Bird, Tim" <[email protected]> Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:24:28 +0000
| Newsgroups | org.linuxfoundation.lists.ksummit-discuss,dev.linux.lists.ksummit,dev.linux.lists.tech-board-discuss,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CY4PR13MB117519F548B125CB2F10F50FFD660@CY4PR13MB1175.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Rostedt > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300 > Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive > > > even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar > > > checker. ;) > > > > How about yeslist and nolist? ;-) > > I was thinking good-list / bad-list. > > /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately... I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words, yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental model of what the code is going to do. -- Tim _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss