On 01/02/2017 08:12 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 04:07:16PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> On 01/01/2017 08:18 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
>>> /* old SP new SP name <email> SP time TAB msg LF */
>>> if (sb->len < 83 || sb->buf[sb->len - 1] != '\n' ||
>>> - get_sha1_hex(sb->buf, osha1) || sb->buf[40] != ' ' ||
>>> - get_sha1_hex(sb->buf + 41, nsha1) || sb->buf[81] != ' ' ||
>>> + get_oid_hex(sb->buf, &ooid) || sb->buf[40] != ' ' ||
>>> + get_oid_hex(sb->buf + 41, &noid) || sb->buf[81] != ' ' ||
>>
>> Some magic numbers above could be converted to use constants.
>
> Yes, I saw that. I opted to leave it as it is for the moment.
Totally understandable.
> I think
> my next series is going to include a small sscanf-style parser to parse
> these. Right now, using constants here is going to leave it extremely
> difficult to read. Something like the following for the OIDs:
>
> strbuf_git_scanf(sb, "%h %h ", &ooid, &noid);
>
> and then following up parsing the remainder.
Maybe something with an interface like skip_prefix wouldn't be too
obnoxious:
const char *p = sb.buf;
if (oid_prefix(p, &ooid, &p) &&
*p++ == ' ' &&
oid_prefix(p, &noid, &p) && ...
> [...]
Michael