On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 05:04:45PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kevin Daudt <m...@ikke.info> writes:
> It often is easier to read if smaller of the two are in the if part
> and the larger in else part.  Also your switch/case is indented one
> level too deep.  I.e.

Thanks, I've switched the order and fixed indentation.

> I found the variable name "skip" a bit hard to reason about.  What
> it does is to signal the next round of the processing that we have
> seen a single-byte quote and it should keep the byte it will get, no
> matter what its value is.  It is "skipping" the conditional
> processing, but I'd imagine most people would consider it is
> "keeping the byte".

Yes, I agree and was trying to find a better name. I have renamed it to
"take_next_literally", which indicates better what it means.

> > @@ -461,6 +506,7 @@ static int check_header(struct mailinfo *mi,
> >                      */
> >                     strbuf_add(&sb, line->buf + len + 2, line->len - len - 
> > 2);
> >                     decode_header(mi, &sb);
> > +                   unescape_quoted_pair(mi, &sb);
> >                     handle_header(&hdr_data[i], &sb);
> >                     ret = 1;
> >                     goto check_header_out;
> I wonder why this call is only in here, not on other headers that
> all call decode_header().  For that matter, I wonder if the call (or
> the logic of the helper function itself) should go at the end of
> decode_header().  After all, this is different kind of decoding; the
> current one knows how to do b/q encoding but forgot about the more
> traditional quoting done with backslash, and you are teaching the
> code that the current decoding it does is insufficient and how to
> handle the one that the original implementors forgot about.

Makes sense, it should be applied to all headers (I missed the other
decode_header calls).

I will send a new version later.

Reply via email to