From: Jeff King Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:35:05 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] refs: move the remaining ref module declarations to refs.h Message-ID: <20150615183504.GB4041@peff.net> In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:13:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > @@ -78,15 +170,15 @@ typedef int each_ref_fn(const char *refname, > > * modifies the reference also returns a nonzero value to immediately > > * stop the iteration. > > */ > > -extern int head_ref(each_ref_fn, void *); > > +extern int head_ref(each_ref_fn fn, void *cb_data); > > For example, between these two, what did we gain? > > Because of their types, it already was clear what the two parameters > are in the original, without noisewords like "fn" (which obviously > stands for a "function", but that is clear due to "each_ref_fn"). I think the real benefit of naming parameters is that you can talk about "fn" and "cb_data" by name in the docstring[1]. Of course we do not do that here, so we could clearly wait until "if-and-when" we do so. But I do not think it is a big deal for our style guide to say "we always name parameters in declarations", and to bring things in line there (though perhaps it should be a separate patch in that case). [1] For instance, in the docstring here, which is just outside the context, we use the awkward phrase "the specified callback function". That would be much simpler as just `fn`, though having so few parameters to these functions, it is fairly clear already. > > -extern int for_each_glob_ref_in(each_ref_fn, const char *pattern, const char* prefix, void *); > > +extern int for_each_glob_ref_in(each_ref_fn fn, const char *pattern, const char* prefix, void *cb_data); > > Likewise for addition of fn and cb_data. > > If you really want to make unrelated changes to this file, what you > should fix is to update "const char* prefix" to "const char *prefix" > ;-) IMHO they are in the same boat (style fixes), and I would be happy to see both improved. :) -Peff