Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> In fact, I think you could then combine this with the previous
> conditional and get:
>
> if (skip_prefix(c, ">8", &end) ||
> skip_prefix(c, "8<", &end) ||
> skip_prefix(c, ">%", &end) ||
> skip_prefix(c, "%<", &end) ||
> /* U-2702 in UTF-8 */
> skip_prefix(c, "\xE2\x9C\x82", &end)) {
> in_perforation = 1;
> perforation += end - c;
> scissors += end - c;
> c = end - 1; /* minus one to account for loop increment */
> }
>
> (Though I'm still on the fence regarding the whole idea, so do not take
> this as an endorsement ;) ).
I do not think we want to add more, but use of skip_prefix does
sound sensible. I was very tempted to suggest
static const char *scissors[] = {
">8", "8<", ">%", "%<",
NULL,
};
const char **s;
for (s = scissors; *s; s++)
if (skip_prefix, c, *s, &end) {
in_perforation = 1;
...
break;
}
}
if (!s)
... we are not looking at any of the scissors[] ...
but that would encourage adding more random entries to the array,
which we would want to avoid in order to help reduce the cognirive
load of end-users.
In hindsight, addition of an undocumented '%' was already a mistake.
I wonder how widely it is in use (yes, I am tempted to deprecate and
remove these two to match the code to the docs).
