On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 02:28, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-11-16 17:37:05 -0500, Will Dyson <will_dyson@pobox.com>
> wrote in message <1069022225.19499.59.camel@thalience>:
> > On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 03:16, Will Dyson wrote:
> 
> > -int match_token(char *s, match_table_t table, substring_t args[]);
> > -
> > +int match_token(char *, match_table_t table, substring_t args[]);
> 
> Dropping the blank line is okay, but I don't like dropping "s"
> altogether:)

Well, I think it should be consistent. My original patch added "s" to
all of the prototypes, on the basis that that is the name given in the
function definition (and a partial misunderstanding of kernel-doc). But
it was pointed out that "s" is highly uninformative as an argument name,
and serves no documentation purpose. So I got rid of it, with the
intention of providing another patch which changes the argument names to
something better.

For what it's worth, however, I didn't realize that the original
match_token had the "s" when I re-diffed the patch earlier. And having
the blank line does make some sense, because match_token is different
from the others.

Got any ideas about how to name that argument in a way that is more
helpful to a developer looking to use the functions? I was thinking 
"char *token" for match_token (because you must tokenize the argument
string before feeding each token to match_token) and "substring_t arg"
for the others.

Here is a(nother) rediff of the kernel-doc patch, changing no prototypes
at all. And also a follow-on that renames the arguments in the manner I
describe in the previous paragraph. Feel free to provide an alternate
renaming patch if you've got a better idea than "token" and "arg".

-- 
Will Dyson
"Back off man, I'm a scientist!" -Dr. Peter Venkman