On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 04:55:11 -0500
Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, compiling and running the code
> ensures that those things actually work. On the other hand, I expect you
> can make a much clearer example if instead of having running code, you
> show snippets of almost-code.
>
> E.g.:
>
> struct decoration d = { NULL };
>
> add_decoration(&d, obj, "foo");
> ...
> str = lookup_decoration(obj);
>
> pretty much gives the relevant overview, with very little boilerplate.
> Yes, it omits things like the return value of add_decoration(), but
> those sorts of details are probably better left to the function
> docstrings.
The part about iterating over all entries should probably also be shown
too. Besides that, I'm OK with having a simplified example in
documentation too, but I'll wait and see if others have any opinions
before making any changes.
> Other than that philosophical point, the documentation you added looks
> pretty good to me. Two possible improvements to the API we could do on
> top:
>
> 1. Should there be a DECORATION_INIT macro (possibly taking the "name"
> as an argument)? (Actually, the whole name thing seems like a
> confusing and bad API design in the first place).
Agreed about the "name" thing. I'll add a DECORATION_INIT when I make
the next reroll, but I think that having it with no argument is best
(and instantiating "name" with NULL).
> 2. This is really just an oidmap to a void pointer. I wonder if we
> ought to be wrapping that code (I think we still want some
> interface so that the caller doesn't have to declare their own
> structs).
It is slightly different from oidmap in that this uses "struct object *"
as a key whereas oidmap uses "struct object_id", meaning that a user of
"decorate" must already have objects allocated or be willing to allocate
them, whereas a user of "oidmap" doesn't.
Having said that, it is true that perhaps we have too many data
structures doing similar things.
