From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Ottinger Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] cache cursors: an introduction Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:06:05 -0500 Message-ID: <4327312D.3000208@progeny.com> References: <20050912145543.28120.7086.stgit@dexter.citi.umich.edu> <4325A0D9.2000806@gmail.com> <4325AED6.8050401@citi.umich.edu> <43272350.3060801@progeny.com> <7vslw821jl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gitzilla@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, cel@citi.umich.edu X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 13 22:09:12 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFH4A-0006qZ-Pr for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:07:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932423AbVIMUHj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:07:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932487AbVIMUHj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:07:39 -0400 Received: from zealot.progeny.com ([216.37.46.162]:29631 "EHLO morimoto.progeny.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932423AbVIMUHj (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:07:39 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.101] (pcp961871pcs.brnsbg01.in.comcast.net [68.58.143.126]) by morimoto.progeny.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1106389E; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:07:37 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050802) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vslw821jl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: >Tim Ottinger writes: > > > >>2) However unimportant, I'm an old OO guy and object_cmd looks like >>object.command to me. >> >> > >If you are OO then would not object_method remind you of object->method ?? > > > >>>+ init_cc >>>+ next_cc, prev_cc >>> >>> >>cc_init? >>cc_next, cc_previous >> >> > >Nah, either set is fine as long as it is internally consistent. >I tend to prefer "do-this-to-that" so init_cc and next_cc are >fine by me (just one person's opinion, not a dictator's ruling). > > > I guess it depends on whether you're looking at command completion or not. Most the time I have a thing, and want to do something to it. Then starting with cc_ helps, but starting with init_ only tells me what I can init -- more filtering on my part. Of course, i can just open the darned file and read it. ;-) So it's a matter of what you and your tools like best. Starting with the subject does sort better, though. -- ><> ... either 'way ahead of the game, or 'way out in left field.