On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 12:55:57PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > 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. Oh yeah, it's still quite a mixed bag. I will follow up this patch series to get rid of `the_repository` in "refs.c" completely. While at it I'll adapt some of the functions to gain the `refs_` prefix. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
