On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 02:25:59PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > FWIW, I agree with you here. These patches are not making anything worse
> > (and may even make them better, since we'd probably need to swap out the
> > BLOCKSIZE constant for a run-time "blocksize" variable in fewer places).
>
> It's just that leaving the interface uneven is an easy way to
> introduce an unnecessary bug, e.g.
>
> -type function(args) {
> +type function(args, size_t blocksize) {
> decls;
> - helper_one(BLOCKSIZE, other, args);
> + helper_one(blocksize, other, args);
> helper_two(its, args);
> - helper_three(BLOCKSIZE, even, more, args);
> + helper_three(blocksize, even, more, args);
> }
>
> when this caller is away from the implementation of helper_two()
> that hardcodes the assumption that this callchain only uses
> BLOCKSIZE and in an implicit way.
>
> And that can easily be avoided by defensively making helper_two() to
> take BLOCKSIZE as an argument as everybody else in the caller does.
>
> I do not actually care too deeply, though. Hopefully whoever adds
> "-b" would be careful enough to follow all callchain, and at least
> look at all the callees that are file-scope static, and the one I
> have trouble with _is_ a file-scope static.
Right, my assumption was that the first step in the conversion would be
somebody doing s/BLOCKSIZE/global_blocksize_variable/. But that is just
a guess.
> Or maybe nobody does "-b", in which case this ticking time bomb will
> not trigger, so we'd be OK.
Yes. I suspect we're probably going down an unproductive tangent. :)
-Peff
