On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> (1) if turning your "preparation; do { ... } while()" into
> "while () { }" would make the result a bit easier to read;
So it's probably partly taste, but I will also disagree with your
"easier to read", because of the way the code is logically structured.
In particular, the "no TAB" case is actually *fundamentally* different
from the "no TAB at the end" case. The return value is different, and
the caller does very different things - the code tries to make it very
clear that that "no TAB" situation is very different from "we found a
TAB".
So it's not "preparation + do-while".
It's "preparation + handle the no-TAB case differently", and then the
"do-while" is very natural because by the time we get to the "ok, we
are now going to need to do something about the line" stage, we
already know we have a tab.
But the code *could* be made to just always do the whole
"strbuf_add()", and not return a return value at all, and the no-tab
case wouldn't be explicitly written to be different.
Let me know if you'd prefer that variant, and I'll send a new version.
> (2) if we can somehow eliminate duplication of "tab + 1" (spelled
> differently on the previous line as "1+tab"), the end result
> may get easier to follow.
Yeah, I considered that. Either by just doing "tab++" before (so the
+1" would come from that in both cases), or by introducing a new
variable like
ptrdiff_t bytes_used;
...
bytes_used = 1 + tab - line;
and then just doing
line += bytes_used;
linelen -= bytes_used;
and the code I wrote just didn't do any of those temporary updates,
and instead just did the "+1" by hand in both cases.
Again, I can redo the patch, just tell me which model you prefer.
Linus
--
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