Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 07.02.2013 10:11: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:05:26AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > >>> Would it be better if object_array_entry replaced its "mode" member with >>> an object_context? >> >> Do all callers/users want to deal with object_context? > > Wouldn't it just mean replacing "entry->mode" with "entry->oc.mode" at > each user? Yes, I meant at the time of creation, i.e. when someone has to create and pass an o_a_e and maybe only knows a mode, and thus would have to set the path to NULL or "". >> I'm wondering why o_c has a mode at all, since it is mostly used in >> conjunction with an object, isn't it? > > Just as we record the path from the surrounding tree, we record the > mode. It's that mode which gets put into the pending object list by the > revision parser (see the very end of handle_revision_arg). Storing an > object_context instead of the mode would be a strict superset of what we > store now (right now we just throw the rest away). Sure. But why does object_context have a mode member at all? Maybe it is not alway used together with another struct which has the mode already, then that's a reason. Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html