On 2019-08-12 at 16:49:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> 
> > On 2019-08-12 at 00:32:26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> "brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> >> > +static ssize_t stripped_path_suffix_offset(const char *path, const char 
> >> > *suffix)
> >> 
> >> Perhaps
> >> 
> >>     static ssize_t last_path_component_offset(const char *path, const char 
> >> *name)
> >> 
> >> I am tempted to also call the second parameter to this function
> >> "basename", as we know from the proposed log message that you wish
> >> "basename" were usable for this purpose, but basename itself has
> >> another confusing factor (i.e. "are we stripping ".exe" extension?",
> >> to which the answer is no in the context of these functions).
> >> 
> >> If we agree with the "last path component" phrasing, has_path_suffix()
> >> would become something like:
> >> 
> >>     int last_path_component_equals(const char *path, const char *name);
> >
> > Except this is not necessarily the last path component. It could match
> > one or more path components with the way the function is written.
> 
> That's fair.  Is the feature that allows the function called
> ends_with_component*S* like Szeder suggests designed one, i.e. with
> an explicit purpose of supporting callers that pass "foo/bar" as the
> "suffix" to it, or is it merely that the implementation happens to
> work that way, even though the expected use that is supported is to
> pass only one level component but the implementation did not even
> bother asserting that the "suffix" does not have a slash in it?

Well, I split it out from a function that handles multiple path
components, mostly so that I could leverage existing work (and not have
to worry about getting it wrong). It wasn't explicitly intended that it
support multiple components, since I don't require that for my
implementation, but I could see future users taking advantage of that.

I think "ends_with_path_components" might be the way forward, unless
you think something else would be better.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to