> 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. OK, in a future version I'll go with "noop".
