Re: [PATCH 00/22] cache cursors: an introduction

From: Tim Ottinger <tottinge@progeny.com>
Date: Sep 13, 2005, 20:06 UTC
Message-ID: <4327312D.3000208@progeny.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vslw821jl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 28 quoted lines

>Tim Ottinger <tottinge@progeny.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>2) However unimportant, I'm an old OO guy and object_cmd looks like 
>>object.command to me.
>>    
>>
>
>If you are OO then would not object_method remind you of object->method ??
>
>  
>
>>>+  init_cc
>>>+  next_cc, prev_cc
>>>      
>>>
>>cc_init?
>>cc_next, cc_previous
>>    
>>
>
>Nah, either set is fine as long as it is internally consistent.
>I tend to prefer "do-this-to-that" so init_cc and next_cc are
>fine by me (just one person's opinion, not a dictator's ruling).
>
>  
>

I guess it depends on whether you're looking at command completion or not. Most the time I have a thing, and want to do something to it. Then starting with cc_ helps, but starting with init_ only tells me what I can init -- more filtering on my part.

Of course, i can just open the darned file and read it. ;-) So it's a matter of what you and your tools like best. Starting with the subject does sort better, though.

-- 
                             ><>
... either 'way ahead of the game, or 'way out in left field.