Re: [PATCH] index-pack: fix allocation of sorted_by_pos array

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:49:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I keep tripping over this "real_type vs type" in this code. What do
> > you think about renaming "type" field to "in_pack_type" and
> > "real_type" to "canon_type" (or "final_type")? "Real" does not really
> > say anything in this context..
> 
> An unqualified name "type" does bother me for the word to express
> what representation the piece of data uses (i.e. is it a delta, or
> is it a base object of "tree" type, or what).  I think I tried to
> unconfuse myself by saying "representation type" in in-code
> comments, reviews and log messages when it is not clear which kind
> between "in-pack representation" or "Git object type of that stored
> data" a sentence is talking about, and I agree "in_pack_type" would
> be a vast improvement over just "type".

I think this is doubly confusing because pack-objects _does_ use
in_pack_type. And its "type" is therefore the "real" object type. Which
is the opposite of index-pack, which uses "type" for the in-pack type.
So at the very least, we should harmonize these two uses.

> Especially, if the other one is renamed with "in_pack_" prefix,
> "real_type" is not just clear enough but is probably better because
> it explains what it is from its "meaning" (i.e. it is the type of
> the Git object, not how it is represented in the pack-stream) than
> "final_type" that is named after "how" it is computed (i.e. it makes
> sense to you only if you know that an in-pack type "this is delta"
> does not have the full information and you have to traverse the
> delta chain and you will finally find out what it is when you hit
> the base representation).

Yeah, I agree real_type is fine when paired with in_pack_type. We might
consider modifying pack-objects.h to match (on top of just moving
index-pack to in_pack_type).

-Peff