Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 7/25/2014 7:33 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> --- a/config.c
>>> +++ b/config.c
>>> @@ -1403,11 +1403,12 @@ const struct string_list *git_configset_get_value_multi(struct config_set *cs, c
>>>
>>> int git_configset_get_string_const(struct config_set *cs, const char *key, const char **dest)
>>> {
>>> - const char *value;
>>> - if (!git_configset_get_value(cs, key, &value))
>>> - return git_config_string(dest, key, value);
>>> - else
>>> - return 1;
>>> + int ret;
>>> + char *value;
>>> + ret = git_configset_get_string(cs, key, &value);
>>> + if (ret <= 0)
>>> + *dest = (const char*)value;
>>> + return ret;
>>> }
>>
>> Isn't this a fixup meant for another series?
>>
>
> Though v12 is in pu, Junio commented that git_configset_get_string_const() &
> git_configset_get_string() can be done more concisely, I was trying to do
> that but I failed.
My comment on that version was not about conciseness. You had one
that called git_config_string() to let the callee do the nonbool
error handling and xstrdup() of the non-error return value, and the
other one that did exactly what a call to git_config_string() would
have done. That is being redundant, not just failing to be concise.
I was actually hoping that we would see just
int git_configset_get_string(struct config_set *cs, const char *key, char **dest)
{
return git_configset_get_string_const(cs, key, (const char **)dest);
}
with the implementation of _const() variant be the one from v12.
--
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