From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:27:10 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] Convert starts_with() to skip_prefix() for option parsing Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Duy Nguyen writes: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jeff King 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".