On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 09:52:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > > > We semi-regularly have discussions around whether a function shall be > > named `release()` or `free()`. For most of the part we use these two > > terminologies quite consistently though: > > > > - `release()` only frees internal state of a structure, whereas the > > structure itself is not free'd. > > > > - `free()` frees both internal state and the structure itself. > > > > Carve out a space where we can add idiomatic names for common functions > > in our coding guidelines. This space can get extended in the future when > > we feel the need to document more idiomatic names. > > We have _clear() in some subsystem/API. Are we sure the listed two > are sufficient and _clear() can be replaced with one of them > (perhaps _release())? I'd think that `clear()` can be replaced by `release()`, yes. But in another branch I heard the argument that `clear()` is equivalent to `release()` followed by `init()`, which I do like. The only downside is that `init()` must not allocate memory in this case, as otherwise the `clear()` function would lose the ability to release all resources associated with its structure. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
