On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:58:00PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:26:58 -0500 > >> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > > > >>> I agree that it shouldn't matter much here. But if the name argv_array > >>> is standing in the way of using it, I think we should consider giving it > >>> a more general name. I picked that not to evoke "this must be arguments" > >>> but "this is terminated by a single NULL". > > [...] > >> This sounds reasonable - I withdraw my comment about using struct > >> string_list. > > > > Marking with #leftoverbits as a reminder to think about what such a > > more general name would be (or what kind of docs to put in > > argv-array.h) and make it so the next time I do a search for that > > keyword. > > So are we looking for a natural name to call an array of trings? I > personally do not mind argv_array too much, but perhaps we can call > it a string_array and then everybody will be happy?
That would be fine with me. Though I would love it if we could find a shorter name for the associated functions. For example, argv_array_pushf() can make lines quite long, and something like argv_pushf() is easier to read (in my opinion). And that might work because "argv" is pretty unique by itself, but "string" is not. Some one-word name like "strarray" might work, though I find that is not quite catchy. I guess "strv" is short if you assume that people know the "v" suffix means "vector". It may not be worth worrying too much about, though. We already have 24-character monstrosities like string_list_append_nodup(). ;) -Peff
