Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 04:37:46PM -0800, Linus Arver wrote: > >> OTOH if we were treating these .h files as something meant for direct >> external consumption (that is, if strvec.h is libified and external >> users outside of Git are expected to use it directly as their first >> point of documentation), at that point it might make sense to name the >> parameters (akin to the style of manpages for syscalls). But I imagine >> at that point we would have some other means of developer docs (beyond >> raw header files) for libified parts of Git, so even in that case it's >> probably fine to keep things as is. > > I think this is mostly orthogonal to libification. Whether the audience > is other parts of Git or users outside of Git, they need to know how to > call the function. Our main source of documentation there is comments > above the declaration (we've marked these with "/**" which would allow a > parser to pull them into a separate doc file, but AFAIK in the 9 years > since we started that convention, nobody has bothered to write such a > script). > > Naming the parameters can help when writing those comments, because you > can then refer to them (e.g., see the comment above strbuf_addftime). > Even without that, I think they can be helpful, but I don't think I'd > bother adding them in unless taking a pass over the whole file, looking > for comments that do not sufficiently explain their matching functions. So in summary you are saying that the comments are the most important source of documentation that we have currently, and unless naming the parameters improves these comments, we shouldn't bother naming these parameters. I agree. > I don't doubt that some of that would be necessary for libification, > just to increase the quality of the documentation. But I think it's > largely separate from the patch in this thread. I agree with both statements. Thanks.
