Re: [PATCH] git-compat-util.h: introduce CALLOC(x)

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 10:35:54AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > So you can think of "allocate this one element and zero it" as "calloc,
> > but don't multiply" or as "malloc, but zero". Naming it CALLOC() is
> > thinking of it as the former. If we think of it as the latter it could
> > perhaps be MALLOCZ() or something. I don't know if that name is too
> > subtle or not. We have xmemdupz(), which is basically the same thing;
> > it's only a zero-terminator, but that is because we are writing non-zero
> > bytes in the rest of it. Mostly I'd worry that it is easy to glance past
> > the "Z".
>
> I think the name for the former would be CALLOC_ONE(), as I would
> rephrase it as "calloc, but just one element".  I agree MALLOCZ()
> would be fine for the other interpretation, and I do not have much
> problem as much problem with the name as calling it CALLOC().

Between CALLOC_ONE() and MALLOCZ(), I prefer the latter for brevity. But
between that and CALLOC(), I prefer the latter, since "CALLOC()" reminds
me of the zero-initialization of calloc()-proper, and the "Z" in
"MALLOCZ()" feels easy-ish to miss.

Thanks,
Taylor