Abhishek Kumar <abhishekkumar8222@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I would also prefer the term "immutable" over "const" since const
> already has implications in C programming.
As long as the implication the established word conveys is what the
patch wants to do, it is *better* not to invent another phrase and
instead use the well-known term, no?
>> STRBUF_INIT_CONST: a new way to initialize strbuf
>
> Use imperative mood and be more specific in the commit title -
> `strbuf: Teach strbuf to initialize immutable strings`
s/T/t/;
> I feel this is self-explanatory when you go through the diff.
True.
> void strbuf_grow(struct strbuf *sb, size_t extra)
> {
> + if (sb->len > sb->alloc)
> + strbuf_make_var(sb);
> int new_buf = !sb->alloc;
This introduces decl-after-stmt error.
Also, isn't "if (sb->alloc < sb->len)" too loose a check for the new
feature? AFAICS in 1/2, a strbuf that is still borrowing a const
string always has sb->alloc==0. Other instances of strbuf that
happens to satisify the above condition, e.g. (sb->len == 5 &&
sb->alloc == 1), is an error. If we are to check the condition
about sb->len, shouldn't we diagnose such a case as an error, no?
> +void strbuf_make_var(struct strbuf *sb)
> +{
> + char* str_cpy;
Isn't make_var() an implementation detail that should not leak
to the strbuf API users? IOW, does it have to be extern?
In our codebase (eh, rather, in C as opposed to C++), the asterisk
sticks to the identifier, not to the type.
> void strbuf_trim_trailing_newline(struct strbuf *sb)
> {
> + if (sb->buf[sb->len - 1] == '\n')
>> + if (sb->len > sb->alloc)
>> + strbuf_make_var(sb);
>
> Enclose this explicitly in braces.
Yup. Also the repetition we see is a sign that something is wrong.
Perhaps adding a small inline helper
static inline void strbuf_premutate(sb)
{
if (!sb->alloc) {
... body of strbuf_make_var() comes here ...
}
}
and getting rid of strbuf_make_var() would help?
As Peff, I am a bit hesitant about leaving a strbuf that hasn't been
made mutable around, though.
