Re: [PATCH 05/15] get_ref_map(): rename local variables

From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Oct 24, 2013, 07:24 UTC
Message-ID: <5268CB42.4080709@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwql3q11q.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On 10/23/2013 08:45 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
>> Rename "refs" -> "refspecs" and "ref_count" -> "refspec_count" to
>> reduce confusion, because they describe an array of "struct refspec",
>> as opposed to the "struct ref" objects that are also used in this
>> function.
> 
> Good.  In general, we'd prefer to name an array of things that are
> primarily walked in the index order "thing[]", so that "thing number
> 3" can be spelled thing[3] (not things[3]) in the code, though.

Since I didn't change singular -> plural or vice versa in this patch, it's a bit off topic, but in case you are curious I prefer plural to distinguish which pointers point at lists or arrays as opposed to single objects. This convention conveniently leaves the singular available to name a variable that is used for a single object; for example, in a loop

    struct thing thing = things[i];

(The convention in SQL is different: tables are usually named using singular nouns. But that makes sense in SQL because there is not really a way to reference a single row in a table as an aggregate, so there is no need to reserve the singular noun for that purpose. In fact, in SELECT statements the table name often appears in a context that makes it look like it does refer to a single row:

    SELECT employee.name, employee.salary FROM ...

So I think it makes sense to use different conventions in C vs. SQL.)

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/