Calvin Wan <calvinwan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In my review of one of the previous rounds, I asked which part of >> this functionality fits the name "pipe", and I do not think I got a >> satisfactory answer. And after re-reading the patch in this round, >> with the in-header comments, it still is not clear to me. >> >> It looks more like sending the duplicate of the normal output to a >> side channel, somewhat like the "tee" utility, but I am not sure if >> that is the intended way to be used. >> > > In this case, I was hoping "pipe" would refer to the redirection of > output from the child processes to a separate custom function, but > I can see that duplication != redirection. Maybe something like > "parse_child_output" or "parse_output" would make sense, however, > I didn't want to imply with that name that the only functionality is to > parse output. Besides that, I don't really have any other ideas of > what I can name it... Yeah, parsing is not to the point. Sending a copy of output to elsewhere is, so redirect is a better word than parse. And piping is not the only form of redirection, either. If duplication is really the point, then either giving it a name with a word that signals "duplication" would make more sense. "send_copy_fn"? I am not good at naming. As a name that is not end-user facing, it is tempting to assume that the readers have basic knowledge of Unix concepts and call it "tee_fn", but it would be way too cryptic to uninitiated, so I would not recommend it. Hmm...
