On 16/03/2020 07:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Matheus Tavares <matheus.bernardino@xxxxxx> writes:
Note: I choosed to use "st_*", as naming, for simplicity, and to keep
the code lines small. But should we use a more verbose "oidst_*" format,
instead, to avoid confusions with "struct stat"?
...
@@ -334,8 +334,8 @@ struct dir_struct {
/* Enable untracked file cache if set */
struct untracked_cache *untracked;
- struct oid_stat ss_info_exclude;
- struct oid_stat ss_excludes_file;
+ struct oid_stat st_info_exclude;
+ struct oid_stat st_excludes_file;
unsigned unmanaged_exclude_files;
};
I tend to agree with you that using prefix "st_" for anything other
than "struct stat" proper would be confusing. If "ss" used to stand
for "sha1 stat", I would expect "oid stat" to abbreviate to "os", at
least.
I think I stopped myself from more renames in that patch series, because
the number of touched lines across various functions started to grow too
fast and I was already stepping on brian's toes when touching oid
conversions.
I also am wondering if we can do without any prefix, i.e. just call
them "info_exclude" and "excludes_file", because the field names are
private to each struct and there is no strong reason to have a
common prefix among fields in a single struct. Rather, it is more
important for the fields of the same type in a single struct to have
distinct names so that the reader can easily tell them apart and the
reason for their use is straight-forward to understand, and the two
names without any prefix convey their distinction pretty well, I
would think.
The evolution of this name seems to be an artefact of refactorization
process, and not really a design decision:
info_exclude_sha1 (unsigned char[20]) changed to:
ss_info_exclude (struct sha1_stat) changed to:
ss_info_exclude (struct oid_stat)
There are some comments in dir.h still referring to info_exclude_sha1.
Therefore removing the prefix altogether (and fixing outdated comment!)
would be very welcome.
On the other hand, naming them sss_info_exclude or sos_info_exclude
would be quite funny, although I don't find hilarity to be a desirable
quality for a naming convention ;)
--
| ← Ceci n'est pas une pipe
Patryk Obara
