Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 2:10 AM Linus Arver <linusa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> so perhaps the following wording is simpler? >> >> >> >> Like oid_insert(), but insert all oids found in 'src'. Calls >> >> oid_insert() internally. >> > >> > (What you suggest would need s/oid_insert/oidset_insert/) >> > >> > Yeah, it's a bit simpler and shorter, but on the other hand a reader >> > might have to read both this and the oidset_insert() doc, so in the >> > end I am not sure it's a big win for readability. And if they don't >> > read the oidset_insert() doc, they might miss the fact that we are >> > copying the oids we insert, which might result in a bug. >> >> When functions are built on top of other functions, I think it is good >> practice to point readers to those underlying functions. In this case >> the new function is a wrapper around oidset_insert() which does all the >> real work. Plus the helper function already has some documentation about >> copying behavior that we already thought was important enough to call >> out explicitly. >> >> So, tying this definition to that (foundational) helper function sounds >> like a good idea to me in terms of readability. IOW we can inform >> readers "hey, we're just a wrapper around this other important function >> --- go there if you're curious about internals" and emphasizing that >> sort of relationship which may not be immediately obvious to those not >> familiar with this area would be nice. >> >> Alternatively, we could repeat the same comment WRT copying here but >> that seems redundant and prone to maintenance burdens down the road (if >> we ever change this behavior we have to change the comment in multiple >> functions, possibly). >> >> > Also your wording ties the implementation with oidset_insert(), which >> > we might not want if we could find something more performant. See >> > Junio's comment on this patch saying his initial reaction was that >> > copying underlying bits may even be more efficient. >> > >> > So I prefer not to change this. >> >> OK. > > I must say that in cases like this, it's difficult to be right for > sure because it's mostly with enough hindsight that we can tell what > turned out to be a good decision. Here for example, it might be that > someone will find something more performant soon or it might turn out > that the function will never change. We just can't know. > > So as long as the wording is clear and good enough, I think there is > no point in trying to improve it as much as possible. Here both your > wording and my wording seem clear and good enough to me. Junio might > change his mind but so far it seems that he found my wording good > enough too. So in cases like this, it's just simpler to keep current > wording. Sounds very reasonable. > This way I think there is a higher chance that things can be > merged sooner and that we can all be more efficient. Thank you for pointing this out. There is definitely a balance between trying to find the best possible solution (which may require a much deeper analysis of the codebase, existing usage patterns, future prospects in this area, etc) and getting something that's good enough. Somehow I was under the impression that we always wanted the best possible thing during the review process (regardless of the number of rerolls), but you make a good point about "code review ergonomics", if you will. And on top of that I fully agree with all of your other comments below, so, SGTM. Thanks. >> >> > +void oidset_insert_from_set(struct oidset *dest, struct oidset *src); >> >> >> >> Perhaps "oidset_insert_all" would be a simpler name? I generally prefer >> >> to reuse any descriptors in comments to guide the names. Plus this >> >> function used to be called "add_all()" so keeping the "all" naming style >> >> feels right. >> > >> > We already have other related types like 'struct oid-array' and >> > 'struct oidmap' to store oids, as well as code that inserts many oids >> > into an oidset from a 'struct ref *' linked list or array in a tight >> > loop. >> >> Thank you for the additional context I was not aware of. >> >> > So if we want to add functions inserting all the oids from >> > instances of such types, how should we call them? >> > >> > I would say we should use suffixes like: "_from_set", "_from_map", >> > "from_array", "_from_ref_list", "_from_ref_array", etc. >> >> I agree. >> >> However, I would like to point out that the function being added in this >> patch is a bit special: it is inserting from one "oidset" into another >> "oidset". IOW the both the dest and src types are the same. >> >> For the cases where the types are different, I totally agree that using >> the suffixes (to encode the type information of the src into the >> function name itself) is a good idea. >> >> So I think it's still fine to use "oidset_insert_all" because the only >> type in the parameter list is an oidset. > > Yeah, here also I think both "oidset_insert_from_set" and > "oidset_insert_all" are clear and good enough. > >> BUT, maybe in our codebase we already use suffixes like this even for >> cases where the types are the same? I don't know the answer to this >> question. > > I agree that it could be a good thing to be consistent with similar > structs, but so far for oidmap there is only oidmap_put(), and, for > oid-array, only oid_array_append(). (And no, I didn't look further > than this.) > >> However if we really wanted to be consistent then maybe we >> should be using the name oidset_insert_from_oidset() and not >> oidset_insert_from_set(). > > Yeah, "oidset_insert_from_oidset" and perhaps > "oidset_insert_all_from_oidset" would probably be fine too. Junio > found my wording good enough though, so I think it's just simpler not > to change it. > > Also it's not like it can't be improved later if there is a good > reason like consistency with other oid related structs that might get > oidmap_put_all() or oid_array_append_all(). But again we can't predict > what will happen, so...
