On 09/18/2012 07:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> If another sort order is needed, then we will either have to audit
>> existing string_list users to make sure that they don't rely on strcmp()
>> ordering, or we will have to implement strcmp() ordering *plus* the new
>> ordering.
> What I was envisioning was to pass in an optional custom comparison
> when you instantiate a string_list object.  Existing callers that
> rely on (or can live with, because they do not care about the exact
> order) the default order will continue to use the byte-value ordering,
> so there is no need for auditing.  Only the new callers that want
> different ordering would set custom comparison routine.
> But now I wrote it down, I realize that there is no _harm_ in
> documenting "we sort in byte-value order, so expect iterations on
> sorted string list to give them in that order to you" at all.
> So let's go with your documentation patch as-is.
>> It's not that I'm unwilling to implement 2; it's just that I still don't
>> see any advantage to doing so before there is a demonstrated need for it.
> As I said, I have this suspicion that the lack of demonstrated need
> is largely because the existing code that do _not_ use string-list
> don't do so because the interface is limited, so the argument is
> sort of self-fulfilling.

I've been looking for places in the code where string_list can be used,
so hopefully I'll get a feeling for what new functionality will increase
its applicability.

Now that my string_list enhancements are in master, I will start
trickling in patches to convert other code to using string_list when it
seems to benefit code length and/or understandability.


Michael Haggerty
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to