Jeff King wrote: > I'll quote liberally from the original below: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:22:34PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > That makes its function much clearer and more consistent with the > > context. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> > > --- > > strbuf.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c > > index 1c57ac6574..49e8beaa4c 100644 > > --- a/strbuf.c > > +++ b/strbuf.c > > @@ -1118,10 +1118,10 @@ static size_t cleanup(char *line, size_t len) > > * > > * If last line does not have a newline at the end, one is added. > > * > > - * Enable skip_comments to skip every line starting with comment > > + * Enable strip_comments to strip every line starting with a comment > > * character. > > */ > > -void strbuf_stripspace(struct strbuf *sb, int skip_comments) > > +void strbuf_stripspace(struct strbuf *sb, int strip_comments) > > I don't have a strong opinion either way. The original name was just > copied from stripspace()'s similar parameter, which came from 9690c118fa > (Fix git-stripspace to process correctly long lines and spaces., > 2007-06-25). I don't think it carries any particular significance, > though I find either name easy enough to understand. To me strip_comments makes more sense, because it implies an active action, skip_comments implies nothing will be done on them. -- Felipe Contreras
