Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > + Junio Just like Michael, I do not have strong enough opinion for or against this patch to comment on it. I do agree with you that it would be a good longer-term direction to use "submodule" for a "struct submodule" (i.e. submodule object), and call a string that names a submodule either "submodule_name" or "submodule_path" depending on how it names one, for maintainability of the code. However I am not convinced that this patch is an improvement. Even though parameter names in decls only serve documentation purpose and it is even OK to only have type without name there, if we are going to _have_ names, it would make sense to match them to the parameter names actually used in the implementation. Updating these names used in refs.c would make a very noisy patch, of course. But I am not sure if it is a good middle ground to avoid that and to update only refs.h.