Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] strbuf: add xstrdup_fmt helper

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:49:41 -0700

Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:32:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >   str = xstrdup_fmt(fmt, some, args);
>> > ---
>> > I'm open to suggestions on the name. This really is the same thing
>> > conceptually as the GNU asprintf(), but the interface is different (that
>> > function takes a pointer-to-pointer as an out-parameter, and returns the
>> > number of characters return).
>> 
>> Naming it with anything "dup" certainly feels wrong.  The returned
>> string is not a duplicate of anything.
>
> I was somewhat inspired by "mkpathdup" and friends.

That name is from "mkpath gives its result in a static buffer and
forces the callers to xstrdup() if they want to keep the result;
this is a thin wrapper to do so for the caller".  As there is no
str_fmt() that gives its result in a static, so...

> I considered that, but I do find asprintf's interface unnecessarily
> annoying...

Yes, it is annoying.

> Would it be crazy to just call it xprintf? By our current scheme that
> would be "a wrapper for printf", which means it is potentially
> confusing.
>
> Literally any other unused letter would be fine. dprintf for detach? I
> dunno.

If we twist the logic behind the 'mkpathdup' name a little bit,
perhaps we can call it sprintf_dup or something.  That is, "sprintf
wants a fixed preallocated piece of memory to print into, and we
relieve the callers of having to do so", perhaps?

dprintf, mprintf, etc. are also fine by me.