Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Perhaps there's a more idiomatic way of doing the "for each in list
> amend mask" pattern than this "mask/on" variable combo. This function
> doesn't allow us to e.g. do any arbitrary changes to the bitfield for
> multiple flags, but I think in this case that's fine. The common case
> is that we're calling this with a list of one.
An obvious alternative would be to pass two masks, one for setting
and the other for clearing, instead of passing a mask and a bool
that says if the mask is for setting or clearing.
The helper that follows such a design would be:
void ref_sorting_tweak_flags(struct ref_sorting *sorting,
unsigned set, unsigned clear)
{
while (sorting) {
sorting->sort_flags |= set;
sorting->sort_flags &= ~clear;
sorting = sorting->next;
}
}
and the caller in the endgame would become
...
} else if (list) {
unsigned set = REF_SORTING_DETACHED_HEAD_FIRST;
unsigned clear = 0;
*(icase ? &set : &clear) |= REF_SORTING_ICASE;
ref_sorting_tweak_flags(sorting, set, clear);
which may be more lines but probably copes better when adding new
bits.
Thanks.
