Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] for-each-ref: re-structure code for moving to 'ref-filter'

Karthik Nayak [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I do not see much point in renaming between these two.  The latter
makes it sound as if this is only for "filtering" and from that
angle of view is probably a worse name.  If you do not think of a
better one, and if you are going to name the array that contains
this thing "ref_list", calling "ref_list_item" would be following
suit to what string-list did.

Well I just wanted to keep it related to 'ref-filter', I think
'ref_list_item'
sounds better after seeing your point of view.

Also I think Matthieu already commented that "filter" was out of
place for that struct.  I still think your ref_list is better called
ref_array, but that is a minor point.  Use of "foo_list" in our
codebase is predominantly (because we use "commit_list" very often
in the core part of the system) for a linear linked list where you
do not have a random access to the items.  string-list is misnomer,
I would think.

I didn't know about the "we are trying to move away from calling the
name of objects as "sha1[]"". Will leave it as objectname then.

I think you now know after seeing that 56-patch series ;-)

quoted

You didn't explain why you reordered the fields, either.  Were you
planning to make the name[] field to flex-array to reduce need for
one level of redirection or something?

Yes! exactly why the re-order, was going to rebase it and squash it
in, if the code seemed to be up and running.

If that is the case, I would suggest making that "turn it flex array"
a separate step.

Also I think Matthieu already commented that "filter" was out of
place for that struct.  I still think your ref_list is better called
ref_array, but that is a minor point.  Use of "foo_list" in our
codebase is predominantly (because we use "commit_list" very often
in the core part of the system) for a linear linked list where you
do not have a random access to the items.  string-list is misnomer,
I would think.

ref_array also sounds good, yes! there might be confusion and might be
considered a linked list rather than an array. Will change.

I think you now know after seeing that 56-patch series ;-)

Haha, That definitely helped.

If that is the case, I would suggest making that "turn it flex array"
a separate step.

Sure.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik