Vicent Marti <vicent@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it >> really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is >> ewah_not). > > Yes, the name was ported straight from the original library and kept > as-is to make the translation more straightforward. These sources are > --again-- a translation, so I tried to remain as close to the original > Java implementation as possible. > > I agree the name is not ideal, but it does make quite a bit of sense. > It effectively inverts the word based on the run bit, which is the > equivalent of xoring it with the bit if it's one. It's a funny xor that doesn't take a second argument ;-) Anyway, let's not argue forever about the choice of this name. It's just the first thing that came to my mind from the original review, so I used it as an indicator to see if you had done something about it. It seems I picked an indicator that is not significant for the overall state. -- Thomas Rast tr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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