On 10/11/12, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On 2012-10-11 13:26 , Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> My only other concern was that the mapping between those function >> names and the tasks to be done sometimes seemed less than obvious. >> So, I proposed the name change. However, I think the current names >> are workable, assuming an acceptable solution to the above problem. > > I would say, add both variants and make the empty ones drop the return > value. So, for instance, bitmap_ior returns a value, so make > bitmap_ior_cg drop it.
That convention is opposite from what is used in sbitmap, where _cg indicates that it returns the bool. I think returning the value will be the less common case. -- Lawrence Crowl
