[PATCH v2] CodingGuidelines: discourage arbitrary suffixes in function names
- From
Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 23, 2024, 07:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20241023075706.1393147-1-karthik.188@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20241021124145.636561-1-karthik.188@gmail.com>
We often name functions with arbitrary suffixes like `_1` as an extension of another existing function. This creates confusion and doesn't provide good clarity into the functions purpose. Let's document good function naming etiquette in our CodingGuidelines.
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> --- Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines index 30fda4142c..635d6f3a27 100644 --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines @@ -621,6 +621,24 @@ For C programs: - `S_free()` releases a structure's contents and frees the structure. + - Function names should be self-explanatory, clearly reflecting their + purpose or behavior. + + The '_1' suffix for function names has historically indicated: + + - functions processing one of several elements that all need to be + handled similarly. + + - recursive functions that need to be separated from a setup stage. + + To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, such arbitrary suffixes are + discouraged, as they provide no meaningful insight into the function's + role. + +To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, + arbitrary suffixes such as _1 are discouraged, as they provide no + meaningful insight into the function's role. + For Perl programs: - Most of the C guidelines above apply. Range-diff against v1: 1: 0acdf6902c ! 1: dd556a8029 CodingGuidelines: discourage arbitrary suffixes in function names @@ Commit message CodingGuidelines: discourage arbitrary suffixes in function names We often name functions with arbitrary suffixes like `_1` as an - extension of another existing function. This created confusion and + extension of another existing function. This creates confusion and doesn't provide good clarity into the functions purpose. Let's document good function naming etiquette in our CodingGuidelines. @@ Documentation/CodingGuidelines: For C programs: structure. + - Function names should be self-explanatory, clearly reflecting their -+ purpose or behavior. To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, ++ purpose or behavior. ++ ++ The '_1' suffix for function names has historically indicated: ++ ++ - functions processing one of several elements that all need to be ++ handled similarly. ++ ++ - recursive functions that need to be separated from a setup stage. ++ ++ To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, such arbitrary suffixes are ++ discouraged, as they provide no meaningful insight into the function's ++ role. ++ ++To maintain clarity and avoid confusion, + arbitrary suffixes such as _1 are discouraged, as they provide no + meaningful insight into the function's role. +
-- 2.47.0