Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > FWIW I actually agree with Junio about the helper, but in hindsight I > could have used a better name (not one that is tied to the "index"). > Something like `unsigned_one_complement()`. But of course, that would > say _what_ it does, not _why_.
I personally feel that the particular name is on the better side of the borderline. "st_add3(a, b, c)" says it is about adding three size_t quantities, without saying why it exists and should be used over a+b+c. Existence of the helper and calling it alone should be a good enough sign that we somehow feel a+b+c is not sufficient [ly safe], so we do not call it st_add3_safe() or st_add3_wo_overflow(). Your unsigned-one-complement would fall into the same category, no?
