2014-03-14 0:57 GMT-04:00 Jeff King p...@peff.net:
This discussion ended up encompassing a lot of other related cleanups. I
hope we didn't scare you away. :)
I don't think you could; this community is much more accepting than
other software communities around the web. The fact that I received
Quint Guvernator quintus.pub...@gmail.com writes:
I'll be re-reading this thread and working on this patch over the
weekend to try to identify the more straightforward hunks I could
submit in a patch.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Taking two random examples from an early and a late parts of the
patch:
--- a/builtin/cat-file.c
+++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int cat_one_file(int opt, const char *exp_type,
const char *obj_name)
Quint Guvernator quintus.pub...@gmail.com writes:
The result after the conversion, however, still have the same magic
numbers, but one less of them each. Doesn't it make it harder to
later spot the patterns to come up with a better abstraction that
does not rely on the magic number?
It is
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Taking two random examples from an early and a late parts of the
patch:
--- a/builtin/cat-file.c
+++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int cat_one_file(int opt, const char *exp_type,
const char
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:47:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
--- a/builtin/cat-file.c
+++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int cat_one_file(int opt, const char *exp_type,
const char *obj_name)
enum object_type type;
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:33:50PM -0400, Quint Guvernator wrote:
It is _not_ my goal to make the code harder to maintain down the road.
So, at this point, which hunks (if any) are worth patching?
This discussion ended up encompassing a lot of other related cleanups. I
hope we didn't scare you
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:43:54AM -0400, Quint Guvernator wrote:
memcmp() is replaced with negated starts_with() when comparing strings
from the beginning. starts_with() looks nicer and it saves the extra
argument of the length of the comparing string.
Thanks, I think this is a real
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
static inline int standard_header_field(const char *field, size_t len)
{
-return ((len == 4 !memcmp(field, tree , 5)) ||
-(len == 6 !memcmp(field, parent , 7)) ||
-(len == 6 !memcmp(field, author , 7)) ||
-(len ==
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
static inline int standard_header_field(const char *field, size_t len)
{
- return ((len == 4 !memcmp(field, tree , 5)) ||
- (len == 6 !memcmp(field, parent , 7)) ||
-
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Blindly replacing starts_with() with !memcmp() in the above part is
a readability regression otherwise.
I actually think the right solution is:
static inline int standard_header_field(const char *field, size_t len)
{
return mem_equals(field,
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
static inline int standard_header_field(const char *field, size_t len)
{
- return ((len == 4 !memcmp(field, tree , 5)) ||
- (len == 6 !memcmp(field, parent , 7)) ||
- (len == 6
Am 12.03.2014 20:39, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
static inline int standard_header_field(const char *field, size_t len)
{
- return ((len == 4 !memcmp(field, tree , 5)) ||
- (len == 6 !memcmp(field, parent , 7)) ||
- (len == 6
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 01:08:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Blindly replacing starts_with() with !memcmp() in the above part is
a readability regression otherwise.
I actually think the right solution is:
static inline int
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 05:14:15PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
I also think that eof = next (which I retained here) is off-by-one.
next here is not the newline, but the start of the next line. And I'm
guessing the code actually wanted the newline (otherwise it-key ends
up with the newline in it).
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 05:14:15PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
One thing that bugs me about the current code is that the sub-function
looks one past the end of the length given to it by the caller.
Switching it to pass eof - line + 1 resolves that, but is it right?
The character pointed at by
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Thanks, I think this is a real readability improvement in most cases.
...
I tried:
perl -i -lpe '
s/memcmp\(([^,]+), (.*?), (\d+)\)/
length($2) == $3 ?
qq{!starts_with($1, $2)} :
$
/ge
' $(git ls-files '*.c')
That comes
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
So I think the whole function could use some refactoring to handle
corner cases better. I'll try to take a look tomorrow, but please
feel free if somebody else wants to take a crack at it.
Yup, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
From what I can gather, there seems to be opposition to specific
pieces of this patch.
The following area is clearly the most controversial:
static inline int standard_header_field(const char *field, size_t len)
{
-return ((len == 4 !memcmp(field, tree , 5)) ||
-(len == 6
19 matches
Mail list logo
