From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/67] add reentrant variants of sha1_to_hex and find_unique_abbrev Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:33:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20150916103350.GF13966@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20150915152125.GA27504@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150915152629.GH29753@sigill.intra.peff.net> <55F84D9B.90004@ramsayjones.plus.com> <20150915175027.GA31091@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Ramsay Jones , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 16 12:34:09 2015 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 1ZcA2T-0000ZC-45 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:34:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752686AbbIPKd7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:33:59 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:59857 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751811AbbIPKd7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:33:59 -0400 Received: (qmail 16900 invoked by uid 102); 16 Sep 2015 10:33:59 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:33:59 -0500 Received: (qmail 16623 invoked by uid 107); 16 Sep 2015 10:34:02 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:34:02 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:33:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:15:02AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Maybe we should stick to the established practice of the many, many > reentrant POSIX functions following the *_r() naming convention? I.e. > the reentrant version of localtime() is called localtime_r(), the > reentrant version of random() is called random_r() etc. > > So I could see myself not needing an explanation if I had read > sha1_to_hex_r(...). I like this suggestion. By itself, the "_r" does not communicate as much as "_to" to me, but as long as the reader knows the "_r" idiom, it communicates much more. I'll switch to this unless there is any objection. -Peff