Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2013, #05; Thu, 21)

Vicent Marti [off-list ref] writes:

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
ewah_not).

Yes, the name was ported straight from the original library and kept
as-is to make the translation more straightforward. These sources are
--again-- a translation, so I tried to remain as close to the original
Java implementation as possible.

I agree the name is not ideal, but it does make quite a bit of sense.
It effectively inverts the word based on the run bit, which is the
equivalent of xoring it with the bit if it's one.

It's a funny xor that doesn't take a second argument ;-)

Anyway, let's not argue forever about the choice of this name.  It's
just the first thing that came to my mind from the original review, so I
used it as an indicator to see if you had done something about it.  It
seems I picked an indicator that is not significant for the overall
state.

-- 
Thomas Rast
tr@thomasrast.ch