Am 23.06.2017 um 17:25 schrieb Jeff King:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:20:19PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c
index be3b9e37b1..81ff3570e2 100644
--- a/strbuf.c
+++ b/strbuf.c
@@ -786,7 +786,7 @@ char *xstrfmt(const char *fmt, ...)
}
void strbuf_addftime(struct strbuf *sb, const char *fmt, const struct tm *tm,
- int tz_offset, const char *tz_name)
+ int tz_offset, const int omit_strftime_tz_name)
Why const? And as written above, naming the parameter local would make
it easier to understand instead of exposing an implementation detail in
the interface.
I think calling it "local" isn't right. That's a decision the _caller_
is making about whether to pass through %Z. But the actual
implementation is more like "should the function fill tzname based on
tz?" So some name along those lines would make sense.
In which case the caller would then pass "!mode->local" for the flag.
We only have a single caller currently, so responsibilities can still be
shifted, and it's a bit hard to draw the line. "Here's a format and all
time information I have, expand!" is just as viable as "here's a format
and most time information, expand, and handle %Z in this particular way
when you see it!", I think.
René
