Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced and non-forced device remove

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 10 of 23] libxl: separate forced 
and non-forced    device remove"):
> The original rationale for the name was that the libxl_TYPE_destroy
> functions only free the content of the datastructure but not the
> datastructure itself and that calling such a function free() would be
> potentially confusing.

Hmmm.

> On the other hand not being able to use "destroy" as a term for things
> related domain destruction is a pain too.

Yes.

> Thesaurus.com suggests various things for destroy and/or free which we
> could use for the type destructors. There's lots of fun sounding ones
> ("bollix up", "enfranchise") but "release" perhaps?

"dispose" ?  "discard" ?  "dealloc[ate]" ?  "abandon" ?

"Release" sounds like it refers to some kind of lock or reservation.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel