Re: [PATCH] merge: use string_list_split() in add_strategies()
Johannes Schindelin writes: > All true, but I guess this type of complexity would really complexify > René's patch too much, so I am comfortable with the patch as-is. Yeah, good that we reached the same conclusion, as my point was that for_each_word() would not be all that useful. -- 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
Re: [PATCH] merge: use string_list_split() in add_strategies()
Hi Junio, On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > I wonder, however, if we could somhow turn things around by > > introducing something like > > > > split_and_do_for_each(item_p, length, string, delimiter) > > ... ... > > > > that both string_list_split() *and* add_strategies() could use? We > > would then be able to avoid allocating the list and duplicating the > > items in the latter case. > > I do think such a feature may be useful if we often work on pieces of a > string delimited by a delimiter, but if the caller does not see the > split result, then the function with "split" is probably misnamed. > > I however suspect the variant of this where "delimiter" can just be a > single byte would not be so useful. > > If the input comes from the end user, we certainly would want to allow > "word1 word2\tword3 " as input (i.e. squishing repeated delimiters into > one without introducing an "empty" element, allowing more than one > delimiter characters like SP and HT, and ignoring leading or trailing > runs of delimiter characters). > > If the input is generated internally, perhaps we should rethink the > interface between the function that wants to do the for-each-word and > its caller; if the caller wants to pass multiple things to the callee, > it should be able to do so without first having to stuff these multiple > things into a single string, only to force the callee to use this helper > to split them out into individual pieces. All true, but I guess this type of complexity would really complexify René's patch too much, so I am comfortable with the patch as-is. Ciao, Dscho
Re: [PATCH] merge: use string_list_split() in add_strategies()
Junio C Hamano writes: > If the input comes from the end user, we certainly would want to > allow "word1 word2\tword3 " as input (i.e. squishing repeated Any intelligent reader may have guessed already, but before I stupidly told Emacs to refill the paragraph, the above example had two SPs between word1 and word2. Sorry for being sloppy. > delimiters into one without introducing an "empty" element, allowing > more than one delimiter characters like SP and HT, and ignoring > leading or trailing runs of delimiter characters). > > If the input is generated internally, perhaps we should rethink the > interface between the function that wants to do the for-each-word > and its caller; if the caller wants to pass multiple things to the > callee, it should be able to do so without first having to stuff > these multiple things into a single string, only to force the callee > to use this helper to split them out into individual pieces. -- 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
Re: [PATCH] merge: use string_list_split() in add_strategies()
Johannes Schindelin writes: > I wonder, however, if we could somhow turn things around by introducing > something like > > split_and_do_for_each(item_p, length, string, delimiter) > ... ... > > that both string_list_split() *and* add_strategies() could use? We would > then be able to avoid allocating the list and duplicating the items in the > latter case. I do think such a feature may be useful if we often work on pieces of a string delimited by a delimiter, but if the caller does not see the split result, then the function with "split" is probably misnamed. I however suspect the variant of this where "delimiter" can just be a single byte would not be so useful. If the input comes from the end user, we certainly would want to allow "word1 word2\tword3 " as input (i.e. squishing repeated delimiters into one without introducing an "empty" element, allowing more than one delimiter characters like SP and HT, and ignoring leading or trailing runs of delimiter characters). If the input is generated internally, perhaps we should rethink the interface between the function that wants to do the for-each-word and its caller; if the caller wants to pass multiple things to the callee, it should be able to do so without first having to stuff these multiple things into a single string, only to force the callee to use this helper to split them out into individual pieces. -- 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
Re: [PATCH] merge: use string_list_split() in add_strategies()
Hi René,
On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, René Scharfe wrote:
> static void add_strategies(const char *string, unsigned attr)
> {
> - struct strategy *list = NULL;
> - int list_alloc = 0, list_nr = 0, i;
> -
> - memset(&list, 0, sizeof(list));
> - split_merge_strategies(string, &list, &list_nr, &list_alloc);
> - if (list) {
> - for (i = 0; i < list_nr; i++)
> - append_strategy(get_strategy(list[i].name));
> + int i;
> +
> + if (string) {
> + struct string_list list = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP;
> + struct string_list_item *item;
> + string_list_split(&list, string, ' ', -1);
> + for_each_string_list_item(item, &list)
> + append_strategy(get_strategy(item->string));
> + string_list_clear(&list, 0);
> return;
> }
A nice code reduction!
I wonder, however, if we could somhow turn things around by introducing
something like
split_and_do_for_each(item_p, length, string, delimiter)
... ...
that both string_list_split() *and* add_strategies() could use? We would
then be able to avoid allocating the list and duplicating the items in the
latter case.
Ciao,
Dscho
