From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 11:44:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add a helper to reverse index_pos_to_insert_pos()
Message-ID: <xmqqeezmkusk.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1910091015090.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> FWIW I actually agree with Junio about the helper, but in hindsight I
> could have used a better name (not one that is tied to the "index").
> Something like `unsigned_one_complement()`. But of course, that would
> say _what_ it does, not _why_.

I personally feel that the particular name is on the better side of
the borderline.  "st_add3(a, b, c)" says it is about adding three
size_t quantities, without saying why it exists and should be used
over a+b+c.  Existence of the helper and calling it alone should be
a good enough sign that we somehow feel a+b+c is not sufficient [ly
safe], so we do not call it st_add3_safe() or st_add3_wo_overflow().

Your unsigned-one-complement would fall into the same category, no?