Re: [PATCH] CodingGuidelines: discourage arbitrary suffixes in function names

From: karthik nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 22, 2024, 08:47 UTC
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZSWTKzgep+r8Qk9rZM_W28WsOS-k=VF=R2PHNMHLR613g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aba3d76c-5234-4875-a1a7-b212bb27b266@app.fastmail.com>

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, at 14:41, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> We often name functions with arbitrary suffixes like `_1` as an
>> extension of another existing function. This created confusion and
>> doesn't provide good clarity into the functions purpose. Let's document
>> good function naming etiquette in our CodingGuidelines.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> This is mostly in response to an ongoing thread [1] where I ran into one of
>> these functions and it really took me a while to wrap my head around what the
>> function does.
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOLa=ZREg3xuaT6mbM8+Havn3regZDhK45kGy0+Fw8t56c7Mpg@mail.gmail.com/#R
>
> I was wondering whether it would make sense to use that link in this
> document for the context.  But I see that there is only one instance
> of that in the current document.

Yeah, there are a few such functions in our codebase. I'd be happy to make any improvements, but also think this is simple and clear at the moment.