On 9/25/2007 3:23 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 9/25/2007 1:58 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> > On 9/25/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> txid_lt_snapshot() would then be txid_committed_before(int8, sn) and
>> >> txid_gt_snapshot() respectively txid_committed_after(int8, sn).
>> >
>> > Considering one is NOT other, are both needed?
>> >
>> > I just think it's preferable to avoid duplications and
>> > keep the API minimal.
>>
>> The same would apply to comparison operators. > is the same as NOT <=
>> ... yet we prefer to have both available as it makes code more readable.
> 
> Ok, if you insist.
> 
> Still, how about better names?  'lt' and 'gt' are rather unfit
> about the meaning of the operation.  I think something like
> txid_is_visible() is better.  Plus txid_is_not_visible() then.
> 
> Also txid_is_committed seems fine, but not as good.
> 

If you don't like txid_committed_before/after, how about

     txid_visible_in_snapshot(int8,snap)
     txid_not_visible_in_snapshot(int8,snap)

It's only names of functions that are very likely coded into programs 
rather than used interactively. So the length of the function name 
doesn't really matter.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #