On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> of the padding to be performed. If the atom length is more than the
>>> padding length then no padding is performed. e.g. to pad a succeeding
>>> atom to the middle with a total padding size of 40 we can do a
>>
>> It's odd to have alignment described in terms of "padding" and
>> "padding length", especially in the case of "center" alignment. It
>> might be better to rephrase the discussion in terms of field width or
>> such.
>>
>>> --format="%(align:middle,40).."
>
> Ok this makes sense,
> I'll rephrase as :
>
> `<width>` is the total length of the content with alignment.
This doesn't really make sense. <width> isn't the content length; it's
the size of the area into which the content will be placed.
> If the atom length is more than the width then no alignment is performed.
What "atom"? I think you mean the content between %(align:) and %(end)
rather than "atom". The description might be clearer if you actually
say "content between %(align:) and %(end)" to indicate specifically
what is being aligned.
> e.g. to align a succeeding atom to the middle with a total width of 40
> we can do:
> --format="%(align:middle,40).."
>>> @@ -687,6 +690,29 @@ static void populate_value(struct ref_array_item *ref)
>>> else
>>> v->s = " ";
>>> continue;
>>> + } else if (starts_with(name, "align:")) {
>>> + const char *valp = NULL;
>>
>> Unnecessary NULL assignment.
>
> Thats required for the second skip_prefix and so on.
> Else we get: "warning: ‘valp’ may be used uninitialized in this
> function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]"
Okay, so that's because skip_prefix() is inline, and it doesn't touch
its "out" argument unless it actually skips the prefix. Ugly, but
makes sense, although I think this issue would go away if you combined
the starts_with() and skips_prefix() as suggested earlier.
>>> + struct align *align = xmalloc(sizeof(struct align));
>>> +
>>> + skip_prefix(name, "align:", &valp);
>>
>> You could simplify the code by combining this skip_prefix() with the
>> earlier starts_with() in the conditional:
>>
>> } else if (skip_prefix(name, "align:", &valp)) {
>> struct align *align = xmalloc(sizeof(struct align));
>> ...
>
> That would require valp to be previously defined. Hence the split.
Yes, it would require declaring 'valp' earlier, but that seems a
reasonable tradeoff for cleaner, simpler, less redundant code.
>>> static void apply_formatting_state(struct ref_formatting_state *state, struct strbuf *final)
>>> {
>>> - /* More formatting options to be evetually added */
>>> + if (state->align && state->end) {
>>> + struct strbuf *value = state->output;
>>> + int len = 0, buf_len = value->len;
>>> + struct align *align = state->align;
>>> +
>>> + if (!value->buf)
>>> + return;
>>> + if (!is_utf8(value->buf)) {
>>> + len = value->len - utf8_strwidth(value->buf);
>>
>> What is this doing, exactly? If the string is *not* utf-8, then you're
>> asking it for its utf-8 width. Am I reading that correctly?
>>
>> Also, what is 'len' supposed to represent? I guess you want it to be
>> the difference between the byte length and the display length, but the
>> name 'len' doesn't convey that at all, nor does it help the reader
>> understand the code below where you do the actual formatting.
>>
>> In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, then 'len' is always zero in
>> your tests (because the tests never trigger this conditional), so this
>> functionality is never being exercised.
>
> There shouldn't be a "!" there, will change.
> I guess 'utf8_compensation' would be a better name.
Definitely better than 'len'.
>>> + else if (align->align_type == ALIGN_MIDDLE) {
>>> + int right = (align->align_value - buf_len)/2;
>>> + strbuf_addf(final, "%*s%-*s", align->align_value - right + len,
>>> + value->buf, right, "");
>>
>> An aesthetic aside: When (align_value - buf_len) is an odd number,
>> this implementation favors placing more whitespace to the left of the
>> string, and less to the right. In practice, this often tends to look a
>> bit more awkward than the inverse of placing more whitespace to the
>> right, and less to the left (but that again is subjective).
>
> I know that, maybe we could add an additional padding to even out the value
> given?
I don't understand your question. I was merely suggesting (purely
subjectively), for the "odd length" case, putting the extra space
after the centered text rather than before it. For instance:
int left = (align->align_value - buf_len) / 2;
strbuf_addf(final, "%*s%-*s", left, "",
align->align_value - left + len, value->buf);
or any similar variation which would give the same result.
>> This is a tangent, but I could easily see all of the code from 'if
>> (align->align_value < buf_len)' down to this point being placed in
>> utf8.c as a general alignment utility function. Doing so would make
>> this function shorter, and the patch easier to review overall (which
>> might be an important consideration -- especially given that I've
>> already spent several hours reviewing this one patch).
>
> That's a valid suggestion, will do that, thanks, but that'd mean we need to
> send an align struct to utf8.c which is only defined in ref-filter.h.
> Either this
> is fine or we need to move the definition of struct align to utf8.h.
> I think personally move the align structure and enum over to utf8.h
No, you don't need to move the 'struct align' to utf8.h. That
structure is specific to ref-filter and should stay there. Instead,
you only need to move the enum. For instance, you'd add something like
this to utf8.h:
enum utf8_alignment {
ALIGN_LEFT,
ALIGN_MIDDLE,
ALIGN_RIGHT
};
void strbuf_utf8_align(struct strbuf *buf,
utf8_alignment where, int width, const char *s);
By the way, I forgot to say earlier that this should be done as a
separate patch (in order to make the current patch smaller).
That raises another question. Why are 'struct ref_formatting_state',
'struct align', 'struct atom_value', etc. defined in ref-filter.h at
all? Aren't those private implementation details of ref-filter.c, or
do you expect other code to be using them?
>>> for (i = 0; i < final_buf.len; i++)
>>> printf("%c", final_buf.buf[i]);
>>> putchar('\n');
>>> diff --git a/ref-filter.h b/ref-filter.h
>>> index 9e6c2d4..5575fe9 100644
>>> --- a/ref-filter.h
>>> +++ b/ref-filter.h
>>> @@ -16,14 +16,30 @@
>>> struct ref_formatting_state {
>>> - int quote_style;
>>> struct strbuf *output;
>>> + struct align *align;
>>> + int quote_style;
>>
>> Perhaps decide where you'd like 'quote_style' to reside from the start
>> so that you don't have to add it at one location in its introductory
>> patch and then move it in a later patch. Also, why move it here?
>
> Cause that'd save memory on a 64 bit processor, where the pointers would
> be 8 bytes long and int would be 4 bytes long, this would bring in padding if
> int is placed before the pointers. Will change before hand.
As I understand it, you're not likely to have many
ref_fomratting_state's around at any given time, so this sounds like
premature memory micro-optimization.
--
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