Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 8/11/2020 6:52 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: >> Add a null fetch negotiator. > > I understand the value of this negotiator. I'm concerned about using > "null" as the name, since it has a clear relationship to zero-valued > pointers and that's not what is happening. (My gut feeling starting the > patch was that some function pointers would be NULL or something.) > > Instead, might I recommend "noop" or "no_op" in place of "null" here? Personally I am OK with null [*], but noop is also fine. Side note. I actually would find it good to establish the pattern that something that does not use NULL pointer as its implementation detail can be called null if "null-ness" of its behaviour is its defining characteristics. Thanks.
