On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:46 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Abhishek Kumar <abhishekkumar8222@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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 don't get what you mean by that. > 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? AFAIK after reading the documentation for `strbuf`, there is no other case where `sb->len > sb->alloc` as `alloc` needs to always be more than `len`. I'd like to be corrected if mistaken, though. > As Peff, I am a bit hesitant about leaving a strbuf that hasn't been > made mutable around, though. Yeah, I started to get that when I read Peff's reply. I think I'll go with the approach that Peff suggested, where the constant string is copied to a stack array and so is made mutable to a degree. Since this is a different way, I guess I'll make that from scratch instead of editing the existing one.
