On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 01:34:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The current count-up isn't a big deal, as we need to preprocess that > > array anyway. But it will become more cumbersome as we refactor the > > shortening code. So let's get rid of it and just use the constant > > everywhere. > > OK. As the array is constant, we could lose its NULL-termination > and -1 from the definition of NUM_REV_PARSE_RULES, but that has iffy > upside, and can come on top of the series if we really wanted to. Yeah. We'd have to update the other callers. Not hard, but I agree it doesn't buy us much. -Peff
