So this:
<details>
<summary>[patch] rename</summary>
--- i/src/net.h
+++ w/src/net.h
@@ -1355,24 +1355,24 @@ private:
/**
* Determine whether we're already connected to a given "address:port".
* Note that for inbound connections, the peer is likely using a random outbound
* port on their side, so this will likely not match any inbound connections.
* [@param](/bitcoin-bitcoin/contributor/param/)[in] str_addr String of the form "address:port", e.g. "1.2.3.4:8333".
* [@return](/bitcoin-bitcoin/contributor/return/) true if connected to addrName.
*/
- bool OutboundConnectedToStr(const std::string& str_addr);
+ bool ConnectedToAddrPort(const std::string& str_addr);
/**
* Determine whether we're already connected to a given address:port.
* Note that for inbound connections, the peer is likely using a random outbound
* port on their side, so this will likely not match any inbound connections.
* [@param](/bitcoin-bitcoin/contributor/param/)[in] addr Address and port to check.
* [@return](/bitcoin-bitcoin/contributor/return/) true if connected to addr.
*/
- bool OutboundConnectedToService(const CService& addr);
+ bool ConnectedToAddrPort(const CService& addr);
/**
* Determine whether we're already connected to a given address, in order to
* avoid initiating duplicate connections.
*/
bool AlreadyConnectedToAddress(const CAddress& addr);
</details>
?
Note the similar function that has an "Already" prefix. Make all 3 consistent, either all with or all without an "Already" prefix?
@jonatack, @hodlinator, you already ACKed the current naming, what do you think?
