> -----Original message----- > From: Rene Kita <[email protected]> > Sent: 9 Feb 2026, 18:20 > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 10:07:11AM +0100, Fabian Groffen via Mutt-dev wrote: > > On 09-02-2026 00:51:00 +0100, Gero Treuner wrote: > > [...] > > > I generalized the patch to cover subpaths of different lengths and also > > > applied the optimization to mx_is_mh() . > > > > > > IMO code clarity is sufficient. The array declarations could be moved > > > inside the function, if that might further improve it. Repeated function > > > calls are avoided, CPU cycles probably similar, and size of binary > > > slightly reduced: ~100 Bytes for stripped mh.o and also affecting the > > > final binary (not stripped) on my Debian Linux amd64 machine. But I > > > assume that with different compilers, optimization flags and machines > > > results vary. > > > I decided against the proposed fstatat(), because most likely there are > > > some mutt users on machines not supporting it. Adding detection and > > > alternative code should be overengineering. > > > > > > The code is custom-made to fit to the current buffer code. (Extending it > > > would not be an option in an exercise to minimize code.) > > > > I like this a lot. It's clear and easily extendable. > > Me not. And as Kevin already committed his version to the master branch, > I don't see much value in discussing this any further.
Personally (and I do not impose the view on anyone) I find the patch to be of negative value. I has zero practical effects and introduces two specialized macros to modify a code that was perfectly readable before into a form I do not find better. Plus in my eyes it has some "maintainer energy cost"; when I put my maintainer hat from other projects, I would have to decide whether to accept the code I do not particularly like or write a polite reason why not to, and this would require some amount of energy (maybe up to the point of doing something else instead of handling the situation). So I would like to say out loud, Kevin or other maintainers, that I find it perfectly fine not to accept the patch and even not to react to it in case you would feel similar (but I do not mind if you choose any other solution). Cheers, Milan S.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
