Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2013, #05; Thu, 21)

From: Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch>
Date: Nov 22, 2013, 20:16 UTC
Message-ID: <87bo1ci44d.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFFjANQni7mvFBuAqJnPpTJ_68+rJKU6KmdRAWbyK_jbi0S=xA@mail.gmail.com>

Vicent Marti <vicent@github.com> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
>> really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
>> ewah_not).
>
> Yes, the name was ported straight from the original library and kept
> as-is to make the translation more straightforward. These sources are
> --again-- a translation, so I tried to remain as close to the original
> Java implementation as possible.
>
> I agree the name is not ideal, but it does make quite a bit of sense.
> It effectively inverts the word based on the run bit, which is the
> equivalent of xoring it with the bit if it's one.

It's a funny xor that doesn't take a second argument ;-)

Anyway, let's not argue forever about the choice of this name. It's just the first thing that came to my mind from the original review, so I used it as an indicator to see if you had done something about it. It seems I picked an indicator that is not significant for the overall state.

-- 
Thomas Rast
tr@thomasrast.ch