From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:29:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] negotiator/null: add null fetch negotiator
Message-ID: <20200812172943.1253226-1-jonathantanmy@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsgcr7r1p.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 8/11/2020 6:52 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> >> Add a null fetch negotiator. 
> >
> > I understand the value of this negotiator. I'm concerned about using
> > "null" as the name, since it has a clear relationship to zero-valued
> > pointers and that's not what is happening. (My gut feeling starting the
> > patch was that some function pointers would be NULL or something.)
> >
> > Instead, might I recommend "noop" or "no_op" in place of "null" here?
> 
> Personally I am OK with null [*], but noop is also fine.
> 
> 	Side note.  I actually would find it good to establish the
> 	pattern that something that does not use NULL pointer as its
> 	implementation detail can be called null if "null-ness" of
> 	its behaviour is its defining characteristics.
> 
> Thanks.

OK, in a future version I'll go with "noop".