From: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:55:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] reftable/refname: refactor binary search over refnames
Message-ID: <4ea7gnm5gbuvqnoyxdll3ccxxhr4bmlgzwpjtc7kqzbaf5juzb@5kwcy2qhblss>
In-Reply-To: <44386818ce681da02f00a498acf66043aa55558e.1711109214.git.ps@pks.im>

On 24/03/22 01:22PM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> It is comparatively hard to understand how exactly the binary search
> over refnames works given that the function and variable names are not
> exactly easy to grasp. Rename them to make this more obvious. This
> should not result in any change in behaviour.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
> ---
>  reftable/refname.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/reftable/refname.c b/reftable/refname.c
> index 64eba1b886..9ec488d727 100644
> --- a/reftable/refname.c
> +++ b/reftable/refname.c
> @@ -12,15 +12,15 @@
>  #include "refname.h"
>  #include "reftable-iterator.h"
>  
> -struct find_arg {
> -	char **names;
> -	const char *want;
> +struct refname_needle_lesseq_args {
> +	char **haystack;
> +	const char *needle;
>  };

I agree that the previous `names` and `want` are a bit ambiguous. What
do you think about `refnames` and `target_refname` instead?

-Justin