[CCC DEV] The overloaded word "pin"

[Matt Jadud]

Hi all,

The word "pin" is problematic. On one hand, the ATmega has pins. I
think that's a "correct" use of the word. I can refer to "pin 7" on
the ATmega, and there is a datasheet that tells me where that is on a
particular package (DIP, etc.).

We also refer to "pin 13" on the Arduino. Now, perhaps that is proper,
to refer to "pins" on a board. But, really, the Arduino has female
headers. Yet, we don't say "header 13", nor do we say "plug 13".
However, we most definitely plug things into an Arduino. (We plug
wires into a breadboard, too, and we don't call the holes in a
breadboard "pins," do we?)

I'm not actually *trying* to be pedantic, but I may be succeeding. I'd
like to use different terminology in the libraries for referring to
ATmega "pins" and board... whats? We have a "pinmapping" module, and
it is perfoming a mapping... but mapping "pins" to "pins," when it
seems like they're *different things*, is annoying. And, giving me the
naming-screaming-meemies.

"plug.to.pin.map" doesn't seem like a good name, but it gets closer
than "pin.location". "board.to.pin.map" is better... but do we use the
variable "pin" in PROC headers for when we're referring to both the
board "pin" and the ATmega "pin"?

Right. Anyway. I'm normally in bed by now, but I have to do an airport
run soon. I'll step away from the keyboard momentarily.

Cheers,
Matt

-- 
Sent from my TRS-80