"brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:

> On 2019-08-12 at 00:32:26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> "brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>> > +static ssize_t stripped_path_suffix_offset(const char *path, const char 
>> > *suffix)
>> Perhaps
>>     static ssize_t last_path_component_offset(const char *path, const char 
>> *name)
>> I am tempted to also call the second parameter to this function
>> "basename", as we know from the proposed log message that you wish
>> "basename" were usable for this purpose, but basename itself has
>> another confusing factor (i.e. "are we stripping ".exe" extension?",
>> to which the answer is no in the context of these functions).
>> If we agree with the "last path component" phrasing, has_path_suffix()
>> would become something like:
>>     int last_path_component_equals(const char *path, const char *name);
> Except this is not necessarily the last path component. It could match
> one or more path components with the way the function is written.

That's fair.  Is the feature that allows the function called
ends_with_component*S* like Szeder suggests designed one, i.e. with
an explicit purpose of supporting callers that pass "foo/bar" as the
"suffix" to it, or is it merely that the implementation happens to
work that way, even though the expected use that is supported is to
pass only one level component but the implementation did not even
bother asserting that the "suffix" does not have a slash in it?

Reply via email to