On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:13:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > @@ -78,15 +170,15 @@ typedef int each_ref_fn(const char *refname,
> > * modifies the reference also returns a nonzero value to immediately
> > * stop the iteration.
> > */
> > -extern int head_ref(each_ref_fn, void *);
> > +extern int head_ref(each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data);
>
> For example, between these two, what did we gain?
>
> Because of their types, it already was clear what the two parameters
> are in the original, without noisewords like "fn" (which obviously
> stands for a "function", but that is clear due to "each_ref_fn").
I think the real benefit of naming parameters is that you can talk about
"fn" and "cb_data" by name in the docstring[1]. Of course we do not do
that here, so we could clearly wait until "if-and-when" we do so. But I
do not think it is a big deal for our style guide to say "we always name
parameters in declarations", and to bring things in line there (though
perhaps it should be a separate patch in that case).
[1] For instance, in the docstring here, which is just outside the
context, we use the awkward phrase "the specified callback
function". That would be much simpler as just `fn`, though having so
few parameters to these functions, it is fairly clear already.
> > -extern int for_each_glob_ref_in(each_ref_fn, const char *pattern, const char* prefix, void *);
> > +extern int for_each_glob_ref_in(each_ref_fn fn, const char *pattern, const char* prefix, void *cb_data);
>
> Likewise for addition of fn and cb_data.
>
> If you really want to make unrelated changes to this file, what you
> should fix is to update "const char* prefix" to "const char *prefix"
> ;-)
IMHO they are in the same boat (style fixes), and I would be happy to
see both improved. :)
-Peff
--
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