[Xcb] confused about naming

[Barton C Massey]

In message <200706011532.26703.hto at arcor.de> you wrote:
> I am a bit confused about our new naming conventions. By example:
> 
> In glx.xml there is a list with name "data2". It is converted 
> to "data_2" which indicates that the new-name-convention-converter is 
> applied. 

I'm not certain this is a good thing, btw?

> Names of struct members (e.g. nSizes in randr.xml) stay the same 
> though ("nSizes" instead of "n_sizes"). 

This is arguably a bug.

> Is there a reason to handle list names and field names in a different 
> way? 

Not as far as I know.

> If not, I could change the field names to the new naming convention 
> without breaking the API, because c has only positional parameters: 
> The names themselfes are never referenced [1]. What do you think?

I'm lost now.  What's the proposal here?

> [1] This brings up another question: Are the xcb_xxx_request_t 
>     structs part of the API? I use a continuous counter for the pad
>     fields, i.e. pad0, pad1, ..., pad144 instead of the local pad
>     counter. This would break the API if the structs are part of it.

I don't think the names of the pad fields in the structs are
part of the API.  That said, I don't see why it would be
difficult to number the pads the same way they were before?
It certainly makes them easier to understand...

    Bart