Re: [Kernel-discuss] Re: [PATCH 3/7] [RFC] Battery monitoring class

["Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 4/12/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen
> >   objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous:
> >
> >   "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using
> >   the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging.
> >   Hence:
> >   s/charge_rate/rate/;  s/charge/capacity/"
> >
> >   But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner
> >   if we'll drop "capacity" at all.
>
> I stand with Shem on this one.  The people behind the SBS specification
> seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still
> avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for
> confusion.
>
> I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets
> woudl make of it...

With fixed-units files, having *_energy and *_capacity isn't too clear
either... Nor is it consistent with SBS, since SBS uses "capacity" to
refer to either energy or charge, depending on a units attribute.

As a compromise, how about using "energy" and "charge" for quantities,
and "charging" (i.e., a verb) when referring to the operation?

BTW,  tp_smapi uses "charge" and "charging" interchangeably; that was
a  mistake.

  Shem