Subject: Re: Renaming l_priority and l_usrpri
To: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
From: Mindaugas R. <rmind@NetBSD.org>
Date: 02/19/2007 01:52:46
Quentin Garnier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong: I'm all for better code readability. But re-using
> a name for a different field might be very confusing for anyone
> maintaining code that uses that field. That's the kind of failure I'd
> really not want to debug myself.
That's fully understandable. Maybe use something like l_eprio and l_prio
instead? Then more or less we will avoid re-using of l_priority.
Better suggestions are welcome.