On 24.09.2015 18:56, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 24.09.2015 18:41, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On 24 September 2015 at 19:29, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> >> wrote: >>> Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>> On 24 September 2015 at 18:50, Stefan Sperling <s...@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'. >>> >> Could you please give me link to the thread where we discussed The New >> Way? Yes, we use result_pool/scratch_pool, but I don't remember >> discussion about never using just one POOL. > There hasn't been just "a thread". This discussion started way back when > the design of WC-NG started. And Julian did not say "always use two > pools". See above; he says "'sratch_pool' or 'result_pool'" twice, not > the *or*.
I mean "note the *or*" of course. -- Brane
