From be75cec1b62b9f873c7fc50bbaff3002d82ab458 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Karthik Nayak Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:53:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] CodingGuidelines: discourage arbitrary suffixes in function names We often name functions with arbitrary suffixes like `_1` as an extension of another existing function. This creates confusion and doesn't provide good clarity into the functions purpose. Let's document good function naming etiquette in our CodingGuidelines. Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau --- Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines index 30fda4142c..87904791cb 100644 --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines @@ -621,6 +621,20 @@ For C programs: - `S_free()` releases a structure's contents and frees the structure. + - Function names should be clear and descriptive, accurately reflecting + their purpose or behavior. Arbitrary suffixes that do not add meaningful + context can lead to confusion, particularly for newcomers to the codebase. + + Historically, the '_1' suffix has been used in situations where: + + - A function handles one element among a group that requires similar + processing. + - A recursive function has been separated from its setup phase. + + The '_1' suffix can be used as a concise way to indicate these specific + cases. However, it is recommended to find a more descriptive name wherever + possible to improve the readability and maintainability of the code. + For Perl programs: - Most of the C guidelines above apply.