Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The source of the problem is that the patch originally used > "items" in the struct, too Ah, that makes sense. > As you note, we still call use "items" for the vector passed in to > pushv. I think that is OK, and there is no real need to use the terse > "v" there (it is also purely internal; the declaration in strvec.h does > not name it at all). Indeed. Perhaps I should have included this in my commit message. Side note: should we start naming the parameters in strvec.h? I would think that it wouldn't hurt at this point (as the API is pretty stable). If you think that's worth it, I could reroll to include that in this series (and also improve my commit message for this patch).
