On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:34 PM Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). > I would say that in some sense goes against my motive for this patch, and I still firmly stand by not having '_1' as a suffix. As such, I understand that this might be my biased opinion, so I'll drop the patch overall since like you mentioned, it probably is better to not have anything at all added to the documentation. > > +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? > Indeed :) > Thanks, > Taylor Karthik
