Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> if (!*found_pack) {
> ... first find! fill in found pack, etc ...
> }
> if (exclude)
> return 1;
> if (incremental)
> return 0;
> if (!ignore_packed_keep && !local)
> break; /* effectively return 1, but I think the break is more clear */
> if (local && !p->pack_local)
> return 0;
> if (ignore_packed_keep && p->pack_local && p->pack_keep)
> return 0;
>
> which just bumps it up. I don't think there is a way to make it more
> elegant, e.g., by only checking ignore_packed_keep once, because we have
> to distinguish between each condition being set independently, or the
> case where neither is set.
>
> So I stuck the new check at the end, because to me logically it was "can
> we break out of the loop instead of looking at p->next". But I agree it
> would be equivalent to place it before the related checks, and I don't
> mind doing that if you think it's more readable.
I do not mind too much about having to check two bools twice. But
given that the reason why I was confused was because I didn't see
why we need to pass the two "return 0" conditions at least once
before we decide that we do not need the "return 0" thing at all,
and started constructing a case where this might break by writing
"Suppose you have two packs, one remote and one local in packed_git
list in this order, and ..." before I realized that the new "early
break" can be hoisted up like the above, I definitely feel that "we
found one, and we aren't conditionally pretending that this thing
does not need to be packed at all, so return early and say we want
to pack it" is easier to understand before the two existing "if"
statements.
Thanks.
--
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