On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 09:57:06AM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote: > + - Function names should be self-explanatory, clearly reflecting their > + purpose or behavior. > + > + The '_1' suffix for function names has historically indicated: > + > + - functions processing one of several elements that all need to be > + handled similarly. > + > + - recursive functions that need to be separated from a setup stage. > + > + To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, such arbitrary suffixes are > + discouraged, as they provide no meaningful insight into the function's > + role. > + I'm still not sold on the suggestion to discourage the use of '_1' in the future, so we may want to further qualify this statement with cases where it is OK (in the spirit of Patrick's "as long as this is loosely applied" comment from earlier). > +To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, > + arbitrary suffixes such as _1 are discouraged, as they provide no > + meaningful insight into the function's role. > + Stray diff from the first round? Thanks, Taylor
