From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 06:27:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/17] midx: split `get_midx_checksum()` by adding `get_midx_hash()`
Message-ID: <aTfBZVo6Hq8Nf7uW@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <aTeAUKrB89RM9p+i@nand.local>

On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 08:50:08PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 08:42:23PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 07:25:05PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > > If I didn't have the context of this patch series I would be wondering
> > > what the actual difference between `get_midx_checksum()` and
> > > `get_midx_hash()` is. The way the functions are named seems to rather
> > > indicate that we talk about two different kinds of hashes, rather than
> > > two different ways to encode them.
> > >
> > > Would it maybe be preferable to call them `get_midx_checksum()` and
> > > `get_midx_checksum_hex()`? While at it, we could go even further and
> > > rename them to `midx_get_checksum()` and `midx_get_checksum_hex()` to
> > > conform to our modern best practices.
> >
> > Yeah, I think those are both reasonable suggestions; I'll apply those
> > locally, thanks!
> 
> Hmm. Upon further thinking, I wonder which function should be named
> which.
> 
> I think the _checksum() variant suggests that it returns the non-hex
> encoded form, while the _hex() variant suggests the opposite.
> Unfortunately, the latter is both more commonly used and more characters
> to type ;-).
> 
> I wonder if there are shorter names available. Perhaps
> midx_get_checksum() and midx_get_checksum_raw()?

It's only four more characters to type the `_hex()` variant, and it is
in line with the interfaces we've got in "hex.h". So personally I'd
still prefer to go with `_hex()`.

Patrick