Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> - for (i = 0; i < m->num_objects - 1; i++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i + 1 < m->num_objects; i++) {
>> struct object_id oid1, oid2;
>>
>> nth_midxed_object_oid(&oid1, m, i);
> [...] nth_midxed_object_oid(&oid2, m, i + 1);
>
> Perhaps it would be simpler as:
>
> for (i = 1; i < m->num_objects; i++) {
> ...
> nth_midxed_object_oid(&oid1, m, i - 1);
> nth_midxed_object_oid(&oid2, m, i);
> ...
> }
"Count up while i+1 is smaller than..." looked extremely unnatural and
it was hard to grok, at least to me. This
for (i = 0; i < m->num_objects - 1; i++) {
might have been more palatable, but yours is much better.
> Though I almost wonder if we should be catching "m->num_objects == 0"
> early and declaring the midx to be bogus (it's not _technically_ wrong,
> but I'd have to suspect a bug in anything that generated a 0-object midx
> file).
That, too ;-)
