Re: [PATCH 02/12] Convert starts_with() to skip_prefix() for option parsing
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 26, 2013, 19:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqha9vct0x.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8A0TAyBoTdyrRDb54j9uoZ0=cOuxgTfFavRiUOpHTV_ag@mail.gmail.com>
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
Show 27 quoted lines
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: >> >>> /* here we care if we saw the prefix, as above */ >>> if (parse_prefix(foo, prefix, &the_rest)) >>> ... >>> >>> /* >>> * and here we do not care, and just want to optionally strip the >>> * prefix, and take the full value otherwise; we just have to ignore >>> * the return value in this case. >>> */ >>> parse_prefix(foo, prefix, &foo); >> >> Sounds fine. I recall earlier somebody wanting to have a good name >> for this thing, and I think foo_gently is *not* it (the name is >> about adding a variant that does not die outright to foo that checks >> and dies if condition is not right). >> >> starts_with(foo, prefix); >> strip_prefix(foo, prefix, &foo); >> >> perhaps? > > I still need consensus on the name here guys, parse_prefix. > remove_prefix or strip_prefix? If no other opinions i'll go with > strip_prefix (Jeff's comment before parse_prefix() also uses "strip")
Yup, that comment is where I took "strip" from. When you name your thing as "X", using too generic a word "X", and then need to explain what "X" does using a bit more specific word "Y", you are often better off naming it after "Y".