Max Horn <[email protected]> writes:
>> + buf = ident_line;
>> if (split_ident_line(&ident,
>> - buf + strlen("author "),
>> - line_end - (buf + strlen("author "))) ||
>> + buf,
>> + line_end - buf) ||
>> !ident.date_begin || !ident.date_end)
>> goto fail_exit; /* malformed "author" line */
>> break;
>
> Why not get rid of that assignment to "buf", and use ident_line
> instead of buf below? That seems like it would be more readable,
> wouldn't it?
Yes, and also now the argument list is much shorter, you could
probably do it on two lines instead of three:
if (split_ident_line(&ident,
ident_line, line_end - ident_line) ||
...
>> @@ -1193,10 +1195,9 @@ static void parse_gpg_output(struct signature_check
>> *sigc)
>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sigcheck_gpg_status); i++) {
>> const char *found, *next;
>>
>> - if (starts_with(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1)) {
>> - /* At the very beginning of the buffer */
>> - found = buf + strlen(sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1);
>> - } else {
>> + found = skip_prefix(buf, sigcheck_gpg_status[i].check + 1);
>> + /* At the very beginning of the buffer */
>
> Do we really need that comment, and in that spot? The code seemed
> clear enough to me without it. But if you think keeping is better,
> perhaps move it to *before* the skip_prefix, and add a trailing
> "?"
Both good suggestions (I tend to prefer the removal).
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
