From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Nov 2013, #05; Thu, 21) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:16:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87bo1ci44d.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> References: <20131122102345.GC12042@sigill.intra.peff.net> <87d2lsjs4q.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> <20131122172626.GA4881@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , git To: Vicent Marti X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 22 21:17:11 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VjxA6-0003GW-Vr for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:17:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756141Ab3KVURG (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:17:06 -0500 Received: from psi.thgersdorf.net ([176.9.98.78]:50446 "EHLO mail.psioc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756081Ab3KVUQw (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:16:52 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A754D6580; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:16:49 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at psioc.net Received: from mail.psioc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.psioc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RwFk3n1DBhny; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:16:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net.thomasrast.ch (unknown [89.204.155.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.psioc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51DB54D6414; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:16:38 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Vicent Marti's message of "Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:40:55 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Vicent Marti writes: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Jeff King 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