[Libwebsockets] spelling of “writeable”

Andy Green andy at warmcat.com
Mon Jun 21 07:29:11 CEST 2021



On 6/21/21 12:27 AM, Felipe Gasper wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 	I’ve noticed that the spelling of “writeable” is inconsistent in the LWS API:
> 
> - lws_callback_on_writable
> - LWS_CALLBACK_CLIENT_WRITEABLE

I also noticed this about ten years ago... "writable" is 
dictionary-correct but somehow for the actual event, WRITE-ABLE aligns 
better to my mental model of what is happening there.

> 	Andy, would you accept a PR that adds macros to allow either spelling for such names as these?

Rather than allow either anywhere, if we will address it, we should 
enable people to just use "writable", so then only one (correct) thing 
to remember.

In the past what has worked well for fixing this kind of thing is 
mass-update the actual definitions and examples to the new way, and 
provide #define old new for each modified instance in the related 
headers.  That is a bit tricky since you have to find the old uses to 
prepare the #defines, before mass search-replace that must not wreck the 
new #defines that include the search string.

People refer to the headers and examples to discover what to do, they 
will find the cleaned version and start to use that more over time, 
while no disruption for existing users (nor would the old way ever be 
deprecated for this).

-Andy


More information about the Libwebsockets mailing list