Hi Junio, On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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? Yes. That's what I meant to say with the "what vs why" argument. Thanks, Dscho
