Re: nts -> cstring?

Greg Hudson wrote:
> I happen to find "cstring" a more readable convention (it wasn't at
> all clear to me at first that "nts" stood for "null-terminated
> string" and not some ISO time concept, when I first saw
> svn_time_to_nts). Are there any -1s on renaming the last five _nts
> functions to _cstring functions?

When I first noticed the _nts endings on functions I was so enchanted
about the naming that I went and fixed half the code at work to use
them.

What I like about nts is that:

 * It specifies exactly what is going on - it's a null-terminated
   string. I'm not saying that cstring would be too haphazard either,
   but still for me, nts says it all. I guess I'm a bit tainted by
   some weird code where CString was a class and so on.

 * It's short and compact, you can easily stuff it in functions.
   
Ofcourse the negative is obvious:

 * You don't realize it means a null-terminated string until after
   you've seen it a few times.

But in any case, consistency is paramount - which way it goes here,
doesn't matter to me.

-- Naked

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 20 23:22:29 2002