Re: [PATCH 3/7] refactor argv_array into generic code

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 07:54:48AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:

> In sha1-array you called the "push" function "sha1_array_append"
> instead of "sha1_array_push", so I wonder why here you call them
> "*_push*" instead of "*_append*"?

I dunno. It just seemed natural to write "push" in the context of argv.
Maybe too much perl (push, pop, shift, unshift).

argv_array_append does make sense. One could argue that
sha1_array_append actually doesn't. True, it does append to the end of
the array, but after writing the docs for it yesterday, I realized that
it less of an array, and more of a set container. Because the point of
using it is the optimized lookup/unique function, which is going to sort
it. The array is really just an implementation detail.

So arguably it should be "struct sha1_set", and "sha1_set_insert" or
something. I'm not sure if it's really worth changing (because this is
C, our data structures tend to be a little leaky, anyway, and you _can_
use sha1_array as an ordered list if you want; just don't call the
lookup or sorting functions).

-Peff