From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 22:46:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] xdiff: replace mmbuffer_t with mmfile_t
Message-ID: <20260930224613.GA765052@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <ar0roZKCwALv0n_A@pks.im>

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 05:32:49PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> > Let's use mmfile_t for both cases and drop mmbuffer_t. The latter is
> > probably a more descriptive name, but we have many more uses of
> > mmfile_t (and helpers like read_mmfile). So let's consolidate using that
> > name; we can always change it to something more sensible later.
> 
> Yeah, that was my initial reaction, too. `mmbuffer_t` is indeed a better
> name as `mmfile_t` indicates that it's coming from... well, a file. And
> that's not necessarily true.
> 
> I do wonder whether we should just aim for gradual improvement and use
> `mmbuffer_t` regardless or even shoot for something altogether different
> like `struct xdiff_buf` and then simply not mind the fact that we're
> being inconsistent. That would at least be an initial step into a better
> direction in my opinion, and we can then touch up things over some time.
> 
> But I won't insist on any change like that, I'm okay with keeping
> `mmfile_t`.

I'd really prefer to punt on it for now, just because the diff would be
_so_ big, and has so many extra rabbit holes (e.g., should "mmfile_t
*mf" get a new variable name?).

-Peff