On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:42:06AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:21:42AM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > - item->string[len] = '\0'; > > > + len = strlen(item->string); > > > + while (len && item->string[len - 1] == '\n') > > > + item->string[--len] = '\0'; > > > > Not a strong objection, but this implementation may make the reader > > wonder why NUL needs to be assigned to all "stripped" characters. I'd > > have expected to see: > > > > len = strlen(item->string); > > while (len && item->string[len - 1] == '\n') > > len--; > > item->string[len] = '\0'; > > > > which indicates clearly that this is a simple truncation rather than > > some odd NUL-fill operation, and is slightly more easy to reason about > > since it doesn't involve a pre-decrement as an array subscript. > > Hmm. I consider the "write NULs backward" strategy to be pretty > idiomatic (you can find several similar ones grepping for `\[--` in the > git codebase). But that may just be me (I didn't look, but it's possible > I wrote the other ones, too :) ). > > I don't have a strong preference, though. What you've written is quite > readable. Actually, looking at the diff, the original already has your final line (it _has_ to do the search and NUL-write separately because it does the former before allocating the copy). So between the two options, yours makes the diff more obvious, too, which is a good thing. I'll take your suggestion. -Peff -- 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