On 10/23/2013 08:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Rename "refs" -> "refspecs" and "ref_count" -> "refspec_count" to
>> reduce confusion, because they describe an array of "struct refspec",
>> as opposed to the "struct ref" objects that are also used in this
>> function.
>
> Good. In general, we'd prefer to name an array of things that are
> primarily walked in the index order "thing[]", so that "thing number
> 3" can be spelled thing[3] (not things[3]) in the code, though.
Since I didn't change singular -> plural or vice versa in this patch,
it's a bit off topic, but in case you are curious I prefer plural to
distinguish which pointers point at lists or arrays as opposed to single
objects. This convention conveniently leaves the singular available to
name a variable that is used for a single object; for example, in a loop
struct thing thing = things[i];
(The convention in SQL is different: tables are usually named using
singular nouns. But that makes sense in SQL because there is not really
a way to reference a single row in a table as an aggregate, so there is
no need to reserve the singular noun for that purpose. In fact, in
SELECT statements the table name often appears in a context that makes
it look like it does refer to a single row:
SELECT employee.name, employee.salary FROM ...
So I think it makes sense to use different conventions in C vs. SQL.)
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html