Re: Consistent function names

On 04/03/15 17:03, Rowan Collins wrote: > so if you're looking for something constructive, help move those ideas > forward, rather than flogging the dead horse. The extensive changes documented in this RFC are well over the top, but a much better approach would be to identify blocks which do allow for alternative approaches. It would perhaps make sense to tidy up the coding guidelines to reflect that a substantial section of the names used simply follow the relevant standard already? Is http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ a suitable reference to use in defence of the existing names amongst other things? Or is there another standard people uuuse in addition to the man pages? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk