On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 08:44:45AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:24:11AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Though maybe an even more radical proposal: now that read_ref_full(), > > > etc, are gone, and we have only refs_read_ref_full(), could/should we > > > shorten the latter to drop the "refs_" prefix? > > > > I view it as a good longer-term goal. But I also view it as an > > orthogonal issue to the transition. > > Personally, I'd prefer to keep the `refs_` prefix. This may be personal > preference, but I find it way easier to reason about code when there are > prefixes for our functions that clearly indicate the subsystem they > belong to. > > It's also in line with how other subsystems behave. Everything relating > to strbufs has a `strbuf_` prefix, attr-related code has `attr_` or > `git_attr_`, mem-pool has `mem_pool_`. So ref-related code having a > `ref_` prefix just feels natural to me. I'd find that more compelling if all of the ref-related code had such a prefix. But try reading refs.h sometime. ;) That said, if we want to move in that direction I am OK with it. -Peff
