Re: [PATCH 1/3] merge-ort: copy a few small helper functions from merge-recursive.c

>
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 12/15/2020 12:53 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
> >> From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> In a subsequent commit, we will implement the traditional recursiveness
> >> that gave merge-recursive its name, namely merging non-unique
> >> merge-bases to come up with a single virtual merge base.  Copy a few
> >> helper functions from merge-recursive.c that we will use in the
> >> implementation.
> >
> > I'm sure these are copies, but...
> >
> >> +static struct commit_list *reverse_commit_list(struct commit_list *list)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct commit_list *next = NULL, *current, *backup;
> >> +    for (current = list; current; current = backup) {
> >> +            backup = current->next;
> >> +            current->next = next;
> >> +            next = current;
> >> +    }
> >
> > The naming of 'next' seems backwards to me, since it is really
> > the "previous" node. Using something like 'previous' makes it
> > clear that you are reversing when you say
> >
> >       current->next = previous;
>
> Hmph.  I took "next" commit_list as "list is the original one, and
> next is the reversed list, the next generation of what we received".
>
> Calling it "previous" feels even more backwards when you view among
> three "struct commit_list *" pointers, one (the one that holds the
> eventual return value) is primarily used to denote the resulting
> list itself, and the other two are used to point individual elements
> on the original list.
>
> I wonder if a slightly different codeflow may be easier to follow
>
>         struct commit_list *result = NULL;
>         while (list) {
>                 struct commit_list *next = list->next;
>                 list->next = result;
>                 result = list;
>                 list = next;
>         }
>         return result;
>
> if we were to try improving this for readability?