Jiang Xin <worldhello....@gmail.com> writes:

> +static void print_highlight_menu_stuff(struct menu_stuff *stuff, int 
> **chosen)
> +{
> +     struct string_list menu_list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> +     struct strbuf menu = STRBUF_INIT;
> +     int i;
> +
> +     if (MENU_STUFF_TYPE_MENU_ITEM == stuff->type) {
> +     ...
> +     } else if (MENU_STUFF_TYPE_STRING_LIST == stuff->type) {
> +     ...
> +     }

This is better to write as:

        switch (stuff->type) {
        default:
                die("programming error");
        case MENU_STUFF_TYPE_MENU_ITEM:
                ...
                break;
        case MENU_STUFF_TYPE_STRING_LIST:
                ...
                break;
        }

Besides, there is no good reason to write an equality comparison
between constant and variable in that order (people call it a "Yoda
condition"); do "var == const" if you must.

Also please fix this one:

> +             for_each_string_list_item(item, (struct string_list 
> *)stuff->stuff) {
> +                     if ((*chosen)[i] < 0)
> +                             (*chosen)[i] = 0;
> +                     strbuf_addf(&menu, "%s%2d: %s", (*chosen)[i] ? "*" : " 
> ", ++i, item->string);

Because the evaluation order of function arguments are not defined
(not left to right; these are comma-expressions),

        (*chosen)[i] ? "*" : " "

may use the original value of "i", or value after increment the
evaluation of

        ++i

left in "i".

--
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