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

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 09:38:02PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:

> 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.

FWIW, I agree with your preferences here. But if people think CALLOC()
is misleading or badly named, I'm OK with MALLOCZ(). I guess maybe it is
ALLOCZ() to go with ALLOC_ARRAY(), and a potential ALLOC() if we choose
to have one.

-Peff