Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Atharva Raykar <raykar.ath@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Naming things is hard... > > Absolutely. > >> Maybe the right phrase would be 'target directory'? We are creating a >> target directory name by looking at the "humanish" part of the Git URL. >> >> I think the intention of all callers of this function is to get a >> "default" directory name which will be used as the target of some >> operation in the absence of the user providing one. >> >> So maybe the name could be: 'guess_target_dir_from_git_url()' > > I have no immediate objection to the name. > > Just to see how people (including you) may react to a name from a > completely different line of thinking, let me throw this, though. > > How does git_url_basename() sound? > > Instead of saying what we'd use it for (i.e. as the name for the > directory getting created), we say what we compute. We take a > URL-looking thing that is used by Git, and we compute something like > basename() but that is tailored for Git (e.g. unlike "basename > a/b/c.git" that yields "c.git", we give "c" for "a/b/c.git". > Likewise "<scheme>://a/b/c/.git" won't yield ".git", we compute > "c"). > > Having said that, I think guess_target_dir_from_git_url() is clear > enough. Even though the name I suggested is clear enough, I liked your suggestion a lot more. Not only is it more succinct, but it also opens up the future possibility that the basename of a Git URL might be used for purposes other than finding a directory name. >> This would make sense for any operation now or in the future that wants >> to reuse this functionality. > > That is mostly for you to decide. I can help you sanity check the > proposed name(s) with existing callers, but you'd be a better judge > for callers you'll be adding ;-)
