From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:05:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] Refactor excluded and path_excluded
Message-ID: <CACsJy8CoBvxg9SWFFXbuDJM7Lu74Jw6LVc=7cNwu24h7pijeXQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACnwZYe19r9mefDmAQtuE5NU4jw033fc_i4JvMZUgtMUkNgEOw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We could introduce exclude_path() and kill path_excluded() then. There
>>>> are just about 5-6 call sites to replace.
>>>
>>> The name path_excluded(... path ...) sounds like it is asking a
>>> yes/no question "is this path excluded?", which actually is what is
>>> going on.
>>>
>>> The name exclude_path(... path ...) sounds as if you are requesting
>>> somebody to exclude the path.  Does that meaning match the semantics
>>> of the function?
>>
>> I'm not great at naming. And path_excluded() cannot be reused to avoid
>> problems with other ongoing series if any. So path_is_excluded()?
>
> is_path_excluded()?

Good too.
-- 
Duy