On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Introduce 'ref_formatting' structure to hold values of pseudo atoms
>> which help only in formatting. This will eventually be used by atoms
>> like `color` and the `padright` atom which will be introduced in a
>> later patch.
>
> Isn't this commit message outdated now that you no longer treat color
> specially and since the terminology is changing from "pseudo" to
> "modifier"? Also, isn't the structure now called
> 'ref_formatting_state' rather than 'ref_formatting'?
Yes, thanks for pointing it out. will change.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/ref-filter.c b/ref-filter.c
>> index 7561727..a919a14 100644
>> --- a/ref-filter.c
>> +++ b/ref-filter.c
>> @@ -620,7 +622,7 @@ static void populate_value(struct ref_array_item *ref)
>> const char *name = used_atom[i];
>> struct atom_value *v = &ref->value[i];
>> int deref = 0;
>> - const char *refname;
>> + const char *refname = NULL;
>
> What is this change about? It doesn't seem to be related to anything
> else in the patch.
>
In previous versions it was giving a refname not assigned error before usage
error, in the current version, its not needed. will remove.
>> const char *formatp;
>> struct branch *branch = NULL;
>>
>> @@ -1190,30 +1192,47 @@ void ref_array_sort(struct ref_sorting *sorting, struct ref_array *array)
>> +static void print_value(struct atom_value *v, struct ref_formatting_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct strbuf value = STRBUF_INIT;
>> + struct strbuf formatted = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Some (pesudo) atoms have no immediate side effect, but only
>> + * affect the next atom. Store the relevant information from
>> + * these atoms in the 'state' variable for use when displaying
>> + * the next atom.
>> + */
>> + apply_formatting_state(state, v, &value);
>
> The comment says that this is "storing" formatting state, however, the
> code is actually "applying" the state. You could move this comment
> down to show_ref_array_item() where formatting state actually gets
> stored. Or you could fix it to talk about "applying" the state.
> However, now that apply_formatting_state() has a meaningful name, you
> could also drop the comment altogether since it doesn't say much
> beyond what is said already by the function name.
>
I guess I'll drop the comment thanks :)
>> + switch (state->quote_style) {
>> case QUOTE_NONE:
>> - fputs(v->s, stdout);
>> @@ -1254,9 +1273,26 @@ static void emit(const char *cp, const char *ep)
>> +static void reset_formatting_state(struct ref_formatting_state *state)
>> +{
>> + int quote_style = state->quote_style;
>> + memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
>> + state->quote_style = quote_style;
>
> I wonder if this sledge-hammer approach of saving one or two values
> before clearing the entire 'ref_formatting_state' and then restoring
> the saved values will scale well. Would it be better for this to just
> individually reset the fields which need resetting and not touch those
> that don't?
>
> Also, the fact that quote_style has to be handled specially may be an
> indication that it doesn't belong in this structure grouped with the
> other modifiers or that you need better classification within the
> structure. For instance:
>
> struct ref_formatting_state {
> struct global {
> int quote_style;
> };
> struct local {
> int pad_right;
> };
>
> where 'local' state gets reset by reset_formatting_state(), and
> 'global' is left alone.
>
> That's just one idea, not necessarily a proposal, but is something to
> think about since the current arrangement is kind of yucky.
>
Did you read Junio's suggestion about not having a reset_formatting_state()
and rather just have each state be responsible of resetting itself.
I think thats seems to be a better approach.
>> +}
>> +
>> void show_ref_array_item(struct ref_array_item *info, const char *format, int quote_style)
>> {
>> const char *cp, *sp, *ep;
>> + struct ref_formatting_state state;
>> +
>> + memset(&state, 0, sizeof(state));
>> + state.quote_style = quote_style;
>
> It's a little bit ugly to use memset() here when you have
> reset_formatting_state() available. You could set quote_style first,
> and then call reset_formatting_state() rather than memset(). Or,
> perhaps, change reset_formatting_state(), as described above, to stop
> using the sledge-hammer approach.
>
I guess even this would be taken care of by implementing Junio's suggestion.
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
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