On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > But I wonder if things would be simpler if we did not touch the commit
> > code path at all. I.e., if this were simply "--no-object-names", and it
> > touched only show_object().
>
> Yeah, that sounds more tempting. And the refined code structure you
> suggested ...
>
> >> @@ -255,6 +262,10 @@ static void show_object(struct object *obj, const char *name, void *cb_data)
> >> display_progress(progress, ++progress_counter);
> >> if (info->flags & REV_LIST_QUIET)
> >> return;
> >> + if (arg_oid_only) {
> >> + printf("%s\n", oid_to_hex(&obj->oid));
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> show_object_with_name(stdout, obj, name);
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > A minor style point, but I think this might be easier to follow without
> > the early return, since we are really choosing to do A or B. Writing:
> >
> > if (arg_oid_only)
> > printf(...);
> > else
> > show_object_with_name(...);
> >
> > shows that more clearly, I think.
>
> ... is a good way to clearly show that intention, I would think.
Sounds good. Thanks, both; I'll reroll that quickly today.
