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

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 12:39:47 -0700

Karthik Nayak <[email-masked]> writes:

>> 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 ;-)

>> 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.