On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 8:18 AM Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think we could also get rid of the "match_and_" part of the > suggestion, in the same way as skip_prefix() is not called > match_and_skip_prefix(). Readers can just expect that if there is no > match the function will return 0. > > So maybe "extract_field_option()". If we want to hint more that it works in the way as skip_prefix(), we could call it "skip_field()".
