On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <[email protected]> writes: > > > But I wonder if things would be simpler if we did not touch the commit > > code path at all. I.e., if this were simply "--no-object-names", and it > > touched only show_object(). > > Yeah, that sounds more tempting. And the refined code structure you > suggested ... > > >> @@ -255,6 +262,10 @@ static void show_object(struct object *obj, const > >> char *name, void *cb_data) > >> display_progress(progress, ++progress_counter); > >> if (info->flags & REV_LIST_QUIET) > >> return; > >> + if (arg_oid_only) { > >> + printf("%s\n", oid_to_hex(&obj->oid)); > >> + return; > >> + } > >> show_object_with_name(stdout, obj, name); > >> } > >> > > > > A minor style point, but I think this might be easier to follow without > > the early return, since we are really choosing to do A or B. Writing: > > > > if (arg_oid_only) > > printf(...); > > else > > show_object_with_name(...); > > > > shows that more clearly, I think. > > ... is a good way to clearly show that intention, I would think.
Sounds good. Thanks, both; I'll reroll that quickly today.
