From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A4A1F404 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:04:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751927AbeB0WEs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:48 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:39508 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751919AbeB0WEq (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 9621 invoked by uid 109); 27 Feb 2018 22:04:46 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 22:04:46 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27900 invoked by uid 111); 27 Feb 2018 22:05:34 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:05:34 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:04:43 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Jonathan Tan , Brandon Williams , git@vger.kernel.org, sbeller@google.com, stolee@gmail.com, git@jeffhostetler.com, pclouds@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/35] connect: request remote refs using v2 Message-ID: <20180227220443.GB11187@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180125235838.138135-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180207011312.189834-1-bmwill@google.com> <20180207011312.189834-15-bmwill@google.com> <20180221145411.35b2ea84747518a499276bdd@google.com> <20180222181922.GD185096@google.com> <20180222182657.GE19035@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180222112533.0d7c6023fb8e4098efedfe31@google.com> <20180227062128.GG65699@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:58:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > > > Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:26:58 -0500 > >> Jeff King wrote: > > > >>> I agree that it shouldn't matter much here. But if the name argv_array > >>> is standing in the way of using it, I think we should consider giving it > >>> a more general name. I picked that not to evoke "this must be arguments" > >>> but "this is terminated by a single NULL". > > [...] > >> This sounds reasonable - I withdraw my comment about using struct > >> string_list. > > > > Marking with #leftoverbits as a reminder to think about what such a > > more general name would be (or what kind of docs to put in > > argv-array.h) and make it so the next time I do a search for that > > keyword. > > So are we looking for a natural name to call an array of trings? I > personally do not mind argv_array too much, but perhaps we can call > it a string_array and then everybody will be happy? That would be fine with me. Though I would love it if we could find a shorter name for the associated functions. For example, argv_array_pushf() can make lines quite long, and something like argv_pushf() is easier to read (in my opinion). And that might work because "argv" is pretty unique by itself, but "string" is not. Some one-word name like "strarray" might work, though I find that is not quite catchy. I guess "strv" is short if you assume that people know the "v" suffix means "vector". It may not be worth worrying too much about, though. We already have 24-character monstrosities like string_list_append_nodup(). ;) -Peff