Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> for (i = 0; i < p->num_objects; i++) {
> - uint32_t pos;
> + uint32_t index_pos;
> ...
>> *1* The nth_packed_object_id() call we make later using the value we
>> obtain here should be documented to take "index" as its last
>> parameter, now that is what we call the location in the index, which
>> is in object name order.
>
> I would love to see the function given a more descriptive name. Having
> worked on the bitmap code a lot, where the norm is pack-order, saying
> "nth" is confusing and error-prone.
>
> But I think that's out of scope for this series.
Yeah, an explicit index_pos (vs pack_order_pos) would be good names
to use, and nth_packed_object_id() can also use somewhere in its
name to hint that it is about the object name order, but I agree
that both are outside the scope of this series.
Thanks.
