Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 24 September 2015 at 18:50, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:40:45PM +0300, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> I think we use POOL name if function accepts just one pool, and
>>> SCRATCH_POOL/RESULT_POOL in other case. Is not it?
>>> I would not mind to rename POOL to RESULT_POOL in this particular
>>> case, but I'm not sure that we should use RESULT_POOL in all other
>>> cases if function accepts one pool.
>> We certainly have functions that take only a scratch_pool.
>> The idea is to identify the purpose of the pool, and not only
>> in the case where there are 2 pools.
> I don't think we may use other places with only scratch_pool argument
> as reason:
Perhaps there was a slight misunderstanding there. When you wrote "I'm
not sure that we should use RESULT_POOL in all other cases if function
accepts one pool", perhaps Stefan thought you meant all other cases
where a function accepts one pool, regardless of the purpose of that
pool, and he wanted to refute that suggestion. (I wondered if you
meant that.) But if you meant all other cases where a function takes
one pool and that pool is used for results, then I'd say yes, we
should rename them ... eventually.
> we also have many functions that accepts just POOL and use
> it as scratch pool. And we also have many functions that uses it as
> result pool.
Yes, we do have many of those. That was the Old Way. Naming the pools
'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool' is the New Way. We seem to generally
agree that is better, and sometimes we rename the single 'pool'
argument of old functions to either 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool'.
> Anyway I agree that in this particular place RESULT_POOL makes more
> sense so I renamed argument in r1705088.
Received on 2015-09-24 18:36:37 CEST