On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:00 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John Cai <johncai86@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Yeah, this is what I had before but there was discussion about > > separation of concerns in [1]. But perhaps it's preferable > > compared to passing a pointer to nr. > > Oh, I see. > > I do not see any issue with separation of concerns here, actually. > > As long as "dispatch_calls() consumes all the cmd[] before it > returns to the caller" is clearly understood between the function > and its caller(s) [*], clearing of "nr" the caller has is entirely > caller's problem. It becomes needed only because this caller > decides to reuse cmd[] array. > > Side note: you do have a comment before the function to tell > what to expect out of the helper for its callers, right? True, it is the caller's problem due to reusing the array, though dispatch_calls() freeing `line` muddies things slightly. A comment before the function could indeed be helpful, especially letting callers know that `line` is being freed. It probably also would be wise to replace the free() call with FREE_AND_NULL() in order to address the dangling-pointer concern.
