On 06.11.2013, at 23:17, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> Christian Couder wrote:
>> Now has_suffix() returns 1 when the suffix is present and 0 otherwise.
> Ok.  My only worry is that the function is less discoverable since
> its name is so different from prefixcmp(), which might cause someone
> to invent yet another postfixcmp.

Well, that can always happen, no matter what, can't it?

Though personally I wouldn't mind if there was an has_prefix instead or in 
parallel to prefixcmp.

>> The old name followed the pattern anything-cmp(), which suggests
>> a general comparison function suitable for e.g. sorting objects.
>> But this was not the case for suffixcmp().
> It's not clear to me that prefixcmp() is usable for sorting objects,
> either.  Shouldn't it get the same treatment?

Well, unlike suffixcmp, it is transitive, so it could be used for sorting. 
Whether doing that would be sensible is another question, though :-).

For clarity, it might indeed be better to also change prefixcmp to 
has_prefix(), and if some code pops up in the future that needs something like 
the current prefixcmp, it can still be added back.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to