Am 28.07.20 um 22:21 schrieb Jeff King: > The argv_array data type has turned out to be useful in our code base, > but the name isn't very good. From patch 2 of this series: > > The name "argv-array" isn't very good, because it describes what the > data type can be used for (program argument arrays), not what it > actually is (a dynamically-growing string array that maintains a > NULL-terminator invariant). This leads to people being hesitant to use > it for other cases where it would actually be a good fit. The existing > name is also clunky to use. It's overly long, and the name often leads > to saying things like "argv.argv" (i.e., the field names overlap with > variable names, since they're describing the use, not the type). Let's > give it a more neutral name. > > This has bugged me for a while, so I decided to finally fix it. It > wasn't _too_ painful, though I'm sure there will be a little fallout > with topics in flight. Just as this landed in master now, https://lobste.rs/ decided to link to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2493.pdf, which is a paper about reserved identifiers in C. It contains a nice overview. Anyway, 7.31 of C11 says: "All external names described below are reserved no matter what headers are included by the program." And 7.31.13 goes on: "Function names that begin with str, mem, or wcs and a lowercase letter may be added to the declarations in the <string.h> header." So the names of the strvec functions are reserved. Also how about using Coccinelle and patience to reduce the impact of such a change next time? I.e. adding the new thing, providing a semantic patch for converting old code, waiting a reasonable amount of time after the last conversion was necessary and then removing the old thing. René
