[pisa-src] Re: PISA code prefix
- From: Diego Biurrun <diego@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pisa-src@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:29:15 +0200
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 03:33:04PM +0200, Thomas Jansen wrote:
> docs/HACKING defines ps_ as the prefix every PISA-specific part of the code
> should use. Right now most (but not all) of the code uses pisa_ as a common
> prefix.
ps_ is not a good prefix, it's far too generic. IMO we should switch to
pisa_ as prefix.
> There is a simple solution for updating the code to the standards of
> docs/HACKING: find . -name '*.[h|c]' -exec sed -i "s/pisa_/ps_/g" '{}' \;
> It compiles and works at first glance, but produces a huge diff. Since I know
> Diego and his dislike for these things, I'd like to gather some feedback and
> opinions from all of you before deciding on a course of action. Basically the
> options are:
> 1. Leave it alone.
> 2. Convert pisa_ to ps_ with the command mentioned above.
> 3. Convert pisa_ to ps_ function by function.
>
> Downsides are in my opinion:
> 1. Inconsistency
> 2. One huge commit with a probably unreadable diff.
> 3. Huge number of commits, each addressing only one name and therefore
> changing one line multiple times in a row. Also needs more effort.
>
> I'm in favor of option 2 unless someone comes up with another (feasible) idea.
Big commits are OK if they contain just one independent change. But in
any case, if we use the more sensible pisa_ prefix, the commit will be
smaller.
The next question is: Why do we have a prefix on static functions?
Diego
Other related posts:
