Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> ... did you have any comment on
>> the "struct config_key" alternative I sent as a follow-up?
> I did read it but I cannot say I did so very carefully.  My gut
> reaction was that the "take the variable name and section name,
> return the subsection name pointer and length, if there is any, and
> the key" made it readable enough.  The proposed interface to make
> and lend a copy to the caller does make it more readble, but I do
> not know if that is worth doing.  Neutral-to-slightly-in-favor, I
> would say.

Now I re-read that "struct config_key" thing, I would have to say
that the idea of giving split and NUL-terminated strings to the
callers is good, but the "cheat" looks somewhat brittle for all the
reasons that come from using a static buffer (which you already
mentioned).  As I do not offhand think of a better alternative, I'd
say we leave it for another day.
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