Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add a helper to reverse index_pos_to_insert_pos()

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

FWIW I actually agree with Junio about the helper, but in hindsight I
could have used a better name (not one that is tied to the "index").
Something like `unsigned_one_complement()`. But of course, that would
say _what_ it does, not _why_.

I personally feel that the particular name is on the better side of
the borderline.  "st_add3(a, b, c)" says it is about adding three
size_t quantities, without saying why it exists and should be used
over a+b+c.  Existence of the helper and calling it alone should be
a good enough sign that we somehow feel a+b+c is not sufficient [ly
safe], so we do not call it st_add3_safe() or st_add3_wo_overflow().

Your unsigned-one-complement would fall into the same category, no?

Yes. That's what I meant to say with the "what vs why" argument.

And what I wanted to say was that, even though we encourage use of
names that convey _why_, in a case like this, the name that conveys
only what without explicitly saying why is probably OK.