Re: strengthening ARRAY_CARDINALITY

[Jim Meyering]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 01/19/2017 09:43 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> gnulib module + extra checks + name change to ARRAY_SIZE sound good!
>>>>> For a convenience feature, ARRAY_CARDINALITY is not a convenient name.
>>>>
>>>> yeah, "cardinality" sounds more like someone trying to show off their
>>>> familiarity with the english language ;).  then again, my spell checker
>>>> says it's not a word.
>>>>
>>>> linux, glibc, bootloaders, use ARRAY_SIZE.  types use "size" -- it's
>>>> size_t, not cardinality_t.  this is the first time i've seen this name
>>>> used myself.
>>>
>>> FYI, I chose "cardinality" over "size" quite deliberately: the former
>>> refers to the number of things (typically in a set), and while "size"
>>> may also refer to that number, it is often used to refer to the number
>>> of bytes, which is usually a larger number.
>>
>> a fair point.  i think in practice, people are used to the behavior
>> of the macro so it's not an issue.  plus, sizeof already does this.
>
> I like the name ARRAY_SIZE for its shorter length, but agree that
> ARRAY_CARDINALITY is a bit more precise.  I also agree that since
> projects like the kernel are using ARRAY_SIZE that there is now a
> familiarity factor so that developers recognize it as being the number
> of elements in the array (and not the size in bytes of the array).  It's
> always possible to create both names (one as an alias forwarding to the
> other), if you want to use a preferred spelling in a particular project.
>  Which name would be better in a gnulib module?

I think the combination of shorter length and increased (since ~2006)
popularity of the ARRAY_SIZE name make it ok to switch, now. I would
use array-size as the module name.