Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > + - Functions that operate on a specific structure and which are used by > + other subsystems shall be named after the structure. I am not sure if this is a good guideline. In the case of strbuf_, you could say it is named after the structure, but I would actually think that both structure and the functions are named after the subsystem/API (i.e. we have "strbuf" that other subsystems can use). > + The function > + name should start with the name of the structure followed by a verb. > + E.g. > + > + struct strbuf; > + > + void strbuf_add(struct strbuf *buf, ...); > + > + void strbuf_reset(struct strbuf *buf); > + > + is preferred over: > + > + struct strbuf; > + > + void add_string(struct strbuf *buf, ...); > + > + void reset_strbuf(struct strbuf *buf); Do we want to rename start_command(), finish_command(), run_command() and pipe_command()? child_process_start() sounds somewhat ungrammatical. By the way, some functions that have strbuf_ in their names do not have anything to do with managing strings using the strbuf structure, but they do things that are *not* about strings, but happen to use strbuf as a way to either feed input to them or carry output out of them. They should be renamed away to lose "strbuf_" in their names (e.g. strbuf_realpath() is about pathnames; it is immaterial that the function happens to use strbuf to hold its output but takes input from "const char *").
