On 8/4/2022 1:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> My current workaround is to define the size of the array in the
>> header file:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> enum ref_namespace {
>> NAMESPACE_HEAD,
>> NAMESPACE_BRANCHES,
>> NAMESPACE_TAGS,
>> NAMESPACE_REMOTE_REFS,
>> NAMESPACE_STASH,
>> NAMESPACE_REPLACE,
>> NAMESPACE_NOTES,
>> NAMESPACE_PREFETCH,
>> NAMESPACE_REWRITTEN,
>>
>> /* Must be last */
>> NAMESPACE__COUNT
>> };
>>
>> /* See refs.c for the contents of this array. */
>> extern struct ref_namespace_info ref_namespaces[NAMESPACE__COUNT];
>
> Because there is no reason why we want to keep the size of the array
> opaque in this particular case, it may even be preferrable over the
> original ref_namespace[] array of unspecified size. Nice.
>
> BTW, I prefer to name my arrays with a singular noun, when the
> predominant use of it in the code that is an API customer is to name
> an individual element and use it.
>
> In this case, many API users do things like
>
> ref_namespace[NAMESPACE_NOTES}.ref = ...;
>
> so a singular name would be more appropriate. thing[4] that means
> the fourth thing feels more intuitive than things[4], at least to
> me.
This makes sense to me.
> On the other hand, when API customers mostly pass the whole thing
> around as an almost opaque collection to the API function, then a
> plural name is more appropriate. The reason why I focus on API
> customers is because API implementation of course has to go in to
> each individual element of the array and work on it at some level,
> and "individual access means singular name" rule would become non
> workable. The names are mostly to help API customers, so if an
> array is perceived by them as mostly a collection of things, then
> naming it in plural would make it more natural.
Understood. I think this array does not seem to fit this second
case, so I will change it to be singular.
Thanks,
-Stolee
