From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8891 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2010 10:22:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 8814 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jun 2010 10:22:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100623102223.8813.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it" To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20091022162856.10830.fche@redhat.com> References: <20091022162856.10830.fche@redhat.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug translator/10830] new pp() variant for source-level probe point name X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-q2/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2 ------- Additional Comments From przemyslaw at pawelczyk dot it 2010-06-23 10:22 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > pp1() is pretty obscure. Agree. > What about pn() for probe-name (where pp() is for probe-point)? Sound better than "pretty please" or "people", but can be misleading. After all the name of the probe alias is returned here. I suggest following renames: pp() -> ppname() ppl() -> paname() and leaving pp() as (deprecated) alias for new name (backward compatibility or maybe only via --compatible). Yes, new names would be more verbose, but also more clean IMHO. What do you think? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10830 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.