On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:45:57PM -0700, Pasha Bolokhov wrote:
>> Move backwards from the end of the string (more efficient for
>> lines which do not have trailing spaces or have just a couple).
> The original code reads the string from left to right. In theory, that
> means we could get away with not calling strlen() at all, over a
> right-to-left that must start with a call to strlen().
> That being said, I think we already have the length in the calling
> function, so you could probably avoid the strlen() altogether, which
> makes a right-to-left function more efficient.
> However, I doubt it makes that much of a difference in practice, so
> unless it's measurable, I would certainly go with the version that is
> more readable (and correct, of course).
Sorry, just to recap, you would go with the existing version
(which needs correction), or with the one that is being suggested? (I
agree I can format the style a tiny bit better in the latter one)
Tests should not be a big problem, although it's kind of clumsy
to test an internal function which does not really give any output
(you can only measure the outcome). Just again to stress, I have
tested both implementation extensively and the suggested new
implementation gives the correct answers for all your examples below
and all others. If I show this with explicit "t/" tests, will it
Basically what I suggest is
-- either: improve the existing function such that it does correctly
that "text \ " case, and also does not use 'strlen' since it anyway
moves left to right
-- or: use the new suggested implementation (and just brush the
formatting a bit), and perhaps borrow 'len' from the calling routine
And add tests in any case. What is the preference?
>> Slightly more rare occurrences of 'text \ ' with a backslash
>> in between spaces are handled correctly.
> Can you add a test for this?
> Also, if you are refactoring this function, I think it makes sense to
> check that:
> "foo\\ "
> "foo\\\ "
> match "foo\" and "foo\ ", respectively (I think they do with your patch,
> but it is a tricky case that is not immediately obvious).
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