On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:29:01PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > As for this strvec.h s/int/size_t/ topic. I'm not taking that anywhere, > Jeff suggested it and came up with the patch, I figured more helpful > than "if we change s/int/size_t/g for x, shouldn't we change that for y > which whe assign x to?" would be patches I had to do that, which I'd > come up with after Jeff suggested this direction in response to another > topic. I'm not inherently opposed to further int/size_t cleanups. But the trouble is that my single patch stands on its own as an improvement to a real issue, and does not (as far as I know) have any functional downsides (either known or even hypothetical, aside from the obvious mismatch that some callers will still use "int"). But doing wide-spread int/size_t conversion has less obvious immediate benefit, is much easier to get wrong, and may introduce further complications (e.g., differences of opinion in whether we should be passing strvecs around more, or just using size_t in more places). So I don't mind a series in that direction (though I don't necessarily think it is the best use of time), but I'd prefer not to see my original patch tied up in it. -Peff
