From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:04:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Rename suffixcmp() to has_suffix() and invert its result
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1AZQM8HX-DgW0NzN2RidTi9fAcN0XHC8=sz3J4nrwQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq38n96pdo.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> The old name followed the pattern anything-cmp(), which suggests
>>> a general comparison function suitable for e.g. sorting objects.
>>> But this was not the case for suffixcmp().
>>
>> It's not clear to me that prefixcmp() is usable for sorting objects,
>> either.  Shouldn't it get the same treatment?
>
> Sounds like a plan for a good follow-up series.

Ok, I will have a look.

>> If some day we invent a type for 4-byte-aligned object names, it might
>> make sense to do something similar to hashcmp, distinguishing between
>> hashcmp for use where ordering is important and something like hash_eq
>> when checking for equality (since I suspect the latter can be made
>> faster).
>
> Interesting.

Yeah, but I will pass on this one.

Thanks,
Christian.