On 07/09, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Maybe it would be even better to name it 'struct gitdiff_data', as > > it's really only used for those few functions? > > Is it really the case where "these three are only used by the > codepath you made public"? If so, I agree that "gitdiff_data" is a > perfectly good name for it. > > I however had an impression that it is the oppposite, i.e. "the > codepath you made public only needs these three, but these three are > used by other (still private) parts, too." If this is the case, > then "gitdiff_data" is a misnomer, if we were to embed an instance > inside apply_state. Yeah, that's correct. What I meant was that since we're only using this struct for the private 'gitdiff_*()' functions, which are called from 'parse_git_diff_header()', 'struct gitdiff_data' would be a better name than 'struct parse_git_diff_header_data'. I do agree that it wouldn't be a good name if we were to embed it inside 'struct apply_state', and as mentioned in the previous email I'd have a hard time coming up with a good name if we were to do that. > It seems that it is not a good idea to do such embedding, and if > that is the case, "gitdiff_data" is a fine for the three-field > struct. Yeah, I think that's the best way forward, thanks. > Thanks.
