Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2013, #05; Thu, 21)

[Thomas Rast <tr@thomasrast.ch>]

Vicent Marti <vicent@github.com> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> I didn't touch that. Vicent, did you have a comment on the name (it
>> really does look like it is a negation, and the only caller is
>> ewah_not).
>
> Yes, the name was ported straight from the original library and kept
> as-is to make the translation more straightforward. These sources are
> --again-- a translation, so I tried to remain as close to the original
> Java implementation as possible.
>
> I agree the name is not ideal, but it does make quite a bit of sense.
> It effectively inverts the word based on the run bit, which is the
> equivalent of xoring it with the bit if it's one.

It's a funny xor that doesn't take a second argument ;-)

Anyway, let's not argue forever about the choice of this name.  It's
just the first thing that came to my mind from the original review, so I
used it as an indicator to see if you had done something about it.  It
seems I picked an indicator that is not significant for the overall
state.

-- 
Thomas Rast
tr@thomasrast.ch