Hi Junio, On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> > static int reset_head(struct object_id *oid, const char *action, > >> > - const char *switch_to_branch, int detach_head, > >> > + const char *switch_to_branch, > >> > + int detach_head, int reset_hard, > >> > >> It might be worth switching to a single flag variable here. It would > >> make calls like this: > >> > >> > - if (reset_head(&options.onto->object.oid, "checkout", NULL, 1, > >> > + if (reset_head(&options.onto->object.oid, "checkout", NULL, 1, 0, > >> > NULL, msg.buf)) > >> > >> a little more self-documenting (if a little more verbose). > > > > I thought about that, but for just two flags? Well, let me try it and see > > whether I like the result ;-) > > My rule of thumb is that repeating three times is definitely when we > should consolidate separate ones into a single flag word, and twice > is a borderline. > > For two-time repetition, it is often worth fixing when somebody > notices it during the review, as that is a sign that repetition, > even a minor one, disturbed a reader enough to point out. That's my thought exactly, hence I looked into it. The end result is actually easier to read, in particular the commit that re-introduces the `reset --hard` behavior: it no longer touches *all* callsites of `reset_head()` but only the relevant ones. > On the other hand, for a file-scope static that is likely to stay as a > non-API function but a local helper, it may not be worth it. Oh, do you think that `reset_head()` is likely to stay as non-API function? I found myself in the need of repeating this tedious unpack_trees() dance quite a few times over the past two years, and it is *always* daunting because the API is *that* unintuitive. So I *do* hope that `reset_head()` will actually be moved to reset.[ch] eventually, and callsites e.g. in `sequencer.c` will be converted from calling `unpack_trees()` to calling `reset_head()` instead. v2 on the way, Dscho > So I am OK either way, slightly in favor of fixing it while we > remember. > > > >> This one could actually turn into: > >> > >> ret = error(...); > >> goto leave_reset_head; > >> > >> now. We don't have to worry about an uninitialized desc.buffer anymore > >> (as I mentioned in the previous email), because "nr" would be 0. > >> > >> It doesn't save any lines, though (but maybe having a single > >> cleanup/exit point would make things easier to read; I dunno). > > > > But you're right, of course. Consistency makes for easier-to-read code. > > Yup, that does sound good. > > Thanks. >
