From: Tim Ottinger Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:06:05 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] cache cursors: an introduction Message-ID: <4327312D.3000208@progeny.com> In-Reply-To: <7vslw821jl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Junio C Hamano wrote: >Tim Ottinger 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.