On Thu, Dec 16 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Teng Long <dyroneteng@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> A better name, anybody?
>>>
>>> This bit is to keep track of the fact that we made _some_ output
>>> already so any further output needs an inter-field space before
>>> writing what it wants to write out.
>>
>> I found a word "interspace", it looks like a little better than the old
>> one. I will rename to it in next patch, and If there's a better idea,
>> will apply further.
>
> Yeah, it really is needs_inter_field_space but that is way too long.
>
>>> We need to stop using write_name_quoted_relative() in SHOW_FILE_NAME
>>> part, because the helper insists that the name written by it must be
>>> at the end of the entry, if we go that route, but it may be a good
>>> change in the longer term.
>>
>> Let me try to represent to make sure I understand your suggestion
>> sufficiently.
>>
>> "write_name_quoted_relative" is used to compute the relative file name
>> by "prefix" and output the name and a line termination to the given FD.
>>
>> We do not want use "write_name_quoted_relative" in here because the
>> function alway output a line termination after "name", this may bring
>> some inconvenience because the "name" may not be the last field in the
>> future.
>>
>> So, instead:
>>
>> We need to calculate the file name (relative path and quotes if need)
>> without "write_name_quoted_relative" and then output the line
>> termination before return.
>
> I think we are on the same page. We can work backwards, I think.
>
> We have a repetitive
>
> if (mode should be shown) {
> show mode;
> record that we have already shown something;
> }
> if (type should be shown) {
> give inter-field-space if we have shown something;
> show type;
> record that we have already shown something;
> }
> ...
>
> that ends with
>
> if (name should be shown) {
> give inter-field-space if we have shown something;
> show name PLUS line termination;
> }
>
> But if we can make the last step to
>
> if (name should be shown) {
> give inter-field-space if we have shown something;
> show name;
> }
>
> give line termination;
>
> it gets easier to support a combination that does not show name, and
> we can have inter-record separator.
>
> But write_name_quoted_relative() does not give the caller a choice
> to have no terminator, so we need to do something like this:
>
> if (shown_bits & SHOW_FILE_NAME) {
> const char *name;
> struct strbuf name_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>
> if (follow)
> printf("\t");
> baselen = base->len;
> strbuf_addstr(base, pathname);
>
> name = relative_path(base->buf,
> chomp_prefix ? ls_tree_prefix : NULL,
> &name_buf);
> if (line_termination)
> quote_c_style(name, NULL, stdout, 0);
> else
> fputs(name, stdout);
> strbuf_release(&name_buf);
> strbuf_setlen(base, baselen);
> }
>
> I initially thought that extending write_name_quoted() and
> write_name_quoted_relative() to accept a special value or two for
> terminator to tell it not to add terminator would be sufficient (see
> below). I however think it is way too ugly to have the "add no
> terminator and do not quote" option at write_name_quoted() level,
> simply because the caller that chooses as-is can simply do fputs()
> itself without bothering to use write_name_quoted(). So I am not
> convinced that it will a good idea.
>
> If we were to go that "ugly helper" route, the above can become even
> simpler and closer to what you originally wrote, e.g.
>
> if (shown_bits & SHOW_FILE_NAME) {
> if (follow)
> printf("\t");
> baselen = base->len;
> strbuf_addstr(base, pathname);
> write_name_quoted_relative(base->buf,
> chomp_prefix ? ls_tree_prefix : NULL,
> stdout,
> line_termination
> ? CQ_NO_TERMINATOR_C_QUOTED
> : CQ_NO_TERMINATOR_AS_IS);
> strbuf_setlen(base, baselen);
> }
>
>
> quote.c | 5 +++--
> quote.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git c/quote.c w/quote.c
> index 26719d21d1..cbbcd8563f 100644
> --- c/quote.c
> +++ w/quote.c
> @@ -340,12 +340,13 @@ void quote_two_c_style(struct strbuf *sb, const char *prefix, const char *path,
>
> void write_name_quoted(const char *name, FILE *fp, int terminator)
> {
> - if (terminator) {
> + if (0 < terminator || terminator == CQ_NO_TERMINATOR_C_QUOTED) {
> quote_c_style(name, NULL, fp, 0);
> } else {
> fputs(name, fp);
> }
> - fputc(terminator, fp);
> + if (0 <= terminator)
> + fputc(terminator, fp);
> }
>
> void write_name_quoted_relative(const char *name, const char *prefix,
> diff --git c/quote.h w/quote.h
> index 87ff458b06..5c8c7cf952 100644
> --- c/quote.h
> +++ w/quote.h
> @@ -85,7 +85,26 @@ int unquote_c_style(struct strbuf *, const char *quoted, const char **endp);
> size_t quote_c_style(const char *name, struct strbuf *, FILE *, unsigned);
> void quote_two_c_style(struct strbuf *, const char *, const char *, unsigned);
>
> +/*
> + * Write a name, typically a filename, followed by a terminator that
> + * separates it from what comes next.
> + * When terminator is NUL, the name is given as-is. Otherwise, the
> + * name is c-quoted, suitable for text output. HT and LF are typical
> + * values used for the terminator, but other positive values are possible.
> + *
> + * In addition to non-negative values two special values in terminator
> + * are possible.
> + * -1: show the name c-quoted, without adding any terminator.
> + * -2: show the name as-is, without adding any terminator.
> + */
> +#define CQ_NO_TERMINATOR_C_QUOTED (-1)
> +#define CQ_NO_TERMINATOR_AS_IS (-2)
> void write_name_quoted(const char *name, FILE *, int terminator);
> +
> +/*
> + * Similar to the above, but the name is first made relative to the prefix
> + * before being shown.
> + */
> void write_name_quoted_relative(const char *name, const char *prefix,
> FILE *fp, int terminator);
>
In my "just make ls-tree support --format" this whole thing is just:
+ if (prefix)
+ name = relative_path(name, prefix, &scratch);
+ quote_c_style(name, sb, NULL, 0);
+ strbuf_addch(sb, line_termination);
But of course that's an implementation that's moved away from the "write
stuff to a FH for me" API in quote.c.
So I haven't looked carefully here, but you need this API just because
of some constraint in the write_name_quoted()?
Perhaps just running with that approach is better? Whether it's stealing
that approach, or doing away with --object-only for a --format...
