nts -> cstring?

[Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>]

I would like our API to be consistent about how it refers to C-style
(null-terminated) strings.  Right now some older functions use
"cstring" and some newer functions use "nts" (a lot fewer of them
after I simplified the svn_path interfaces).  A summary:

  nts                       cstring
  ---                       -------
  svn_xml_escape_nts        svn_wc_translate_cstring
  svn_xml_unescape_nts      svn_cstring_split
  svn_time_to_nts           svn_cstring_split_append
  svn_time_from_nts         svn_utf_cstring_to_utf8_stringbuf
  svn_time_to_human_nts     svn_utf_cstring_to_utf8
                            svn_utf_cstring_from_utf8
                            svn_utf_cstring_from_utf8_fuzzy
                            svn_utf_cstring_from_utf8_stringbuf
                            svn_utf_cstring_from_utf8_string

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?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: nts -> cstring?

[Nuutti Kotivuori <na...@iki.fi>]

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

Re: nts -> cstring?

[Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>]

Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> 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?

Quite the opposite -- +1, I think it's clearer too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org