On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:34:06PM -0400, Shem Multinymous wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/12/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[email protected]> 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?
It would be great compromise! Please please please!
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: [email protected]
backup email: [email protected]
irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
