Teng Long <dyroneteng@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +--no-blank-line::
> + When appending note, do not insert a blank line between
> + the note of given object and the note to be appended.
> +
--blank-line::
--no-blank-line::
Controls if a blank line to split paragraphs is inserted
when appending (the default is true).
> diff --git a/builtin/notes.c b/builtin/notes.c
> index be51f69225..1ca0476a27 100644
> --- a/builtin/notes.c
> +++ b/builtin/notes.c
> @@ -562,6 +562,7 @@ static int copy(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> static int append_edit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> {
> int allow_empty = 0;
> + int no_blankline = 0;
Use
int blankline = 1;
to avoid double negative, which is confusing and error prone.
> @@ -584,6 +585,8 @@ static int append_edit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> parse_reuse_arg),
> OPT_BOOL(0, "allow-empty", &allow_empty,
> N_("allow storing empty note")),
> + OPT_BOOL(0, "no-blankline", &no_blankline,
> + N_("do not initially add a blank line")),
OPT_BOOL(0, "blank-line", &blankline,
N_("insert paragraph break before appending to an existing note")),
> @@ -619,7 +622,7 @@ static int append_edit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> char *prev_buf = read_object_file(note, &type, &size);
>
> strbuf_grow(&d.buf, size + 1);
> - if (d.buf.len && prev_buf && size)
> + if (!no_blankline && d.buf.len && prev_buf && size)
> strbuf_insertstr(&d.buf, 0, "\n");
Then, the conditional would read more naturally without double
negation.
if (blank_line && d.buf.len && prev_buf && size)
I do not know and I am not judging (yet) if the goal of the patch is
sensible (in other words, if we should have such an option), but if
we were to do so, I would expect the implementation to look more
like what I outlined above.
Thanks.
