Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> As I do not expect that cmd_apply() which is a moral equivalent of
> main() will stay to be the only one who wants to see a reasonably
> initialized apply_state(), I think the patch that introduced the
> very first version of "struct apply_state" should also introduce a
> helper function to initialize it, i.e.
>
> static void init_apply_state(struct apply_state *s,
> const char *prefix)
> {
> memset(s, '\0', sizeof(*s));
> s->prefix = prefix;
> s->prefix_length = s->prefix ? strlen(s->prefix) : 0;
> }
>
> in [PATCH 7/xx].
Just to avoid misunderstanding, I do not mean to say that the
init-apply-state helper that should have been introduced in 07/xx
would gain a new caller-supplied parameter ws_error_action. This
step would have a patch to the function that does something like:
static void init_apply_state(struct apply_state *s,
const char *prefix)
{
memset(s, '\0', sizeof(*s));
s->prefix = prefix;
s->prefix_length = s->prefix ? strlen(s->prefix) : 0;
...
+ s->ws_error_action = warn_on_ws_error;
}
without having the caller supply what error_action should the state
be initialized with.
--
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
