From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:44:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] negotiator/null: add null fetch negotiator
Message-ID: <xmqqsgcr7r1p.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <2f6b3e7e-8f83-bfde-ab63-1eed08ff32b5@gmail.com>

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

> On 8/11/2020 6:52 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> Add a null fetch negotiator. 
>
> I understand the value of this negotiator. I'm concerned about using
> "null" as the name, since it has a clear relationship to zero-valued
> pointers and that's not what is happening. (My gut feeling starting the
> patch was that some function pointers would be NULL or something.)
>
> Instead, might I recommend "noop" or "no_op" in place of "null" here?

Personally I am OK with null [*], but noop is also fine.

	Side note.  I actually would find it good to establish the
	pattern that something that does not use NULL pointer as its
	implementation detail can be called null if "null-ness" of
	its behaviour is its defining characteristics.

Thanks.