-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 258
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Rename 'ret' variables passed from allocation to return.
I mentioned recently (in commit 9e7d4c5) message that I'm no longer fond of the variable name 'ret', because it's used in two quite different contexts: it's the return value from a subroutine you just called (e.g. 'int ret = read(fd, buf, len);' and then check for error or EOF), or it's the value you're preparing to return from the _containing_ routine (maybe by assigning it a default value and then conditionally modifying it, or by starting at NULL and reallocating, or setting it just before using the 'goto out' cleanup idiom). In the past I've occasionally made mistakes by forgetting which meaning the variable had, or accidentally conflating both uses. If all else fails, I now prefer 'retd' (short for 'returned') in the former situation, and 'toret' (obviously, the value 'to return') in the latter case. But even better is to pick a name that actually says something more specific about what the thing actually is. One particular bad habit throughout this codebase is to have a set of functions that deal with some object type (say 'Foo'), all *but one* of which take a 'Foo *foo' parameter, but the foo_new() function starts with 'Foo *ret = snew(Foo)'. If all the rest of them think the canonical name for the ambient Foo is 'foo', so should foo_new()! So here's a no-brainer start on cutting down on the uses of 'ret': I looked for all the cases where it was being assigned the result of an allocation, and renamed the variable to be a description of the thing being allocated. In the case of a new() function belonging to a family, I picked the same name as the rest of the functions in its own family, for consistency. In other cases I picked something sensible. One case where it _does_ make sense not to use your usual name for the variable type is when you're cloning an existing object. In that case, _neither_ of the Foo objects involved should be called 'foo', because it's ambiguous! They should be named so you can see which is which. In the two cases I found here, I've called them 'orig' and 'copy'. As in the previous refactoring, many thanks to clang-rename for the help.
- Loading branch information
Showing
19 changed files
with
513 additions
and
516 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.