Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology

[Randy Dunlap]

On 7/7/20 8:24 AM, Bird, Tim wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steven Rostedt
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300
>> Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive
>>>> even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar
>>>> checker. ;)
>>>
>>> How about yeslist and nolist? ;-)
>>
>> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
>>
>> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...
> 
> I think it depends on the context.  I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
> the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term.  In other words,
> yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
> what the effect will be.  With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
> model of what the code is going to do.

That matches what I was about to say:
Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about.
It should be more descriptive, like allow/block.

-- 
~Randy