Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > It does indeed. I pulled the logic from skip_prefix(), thinking that by > relying on it I would avoid making a stupid mistake. Oh well. :) > > Doing it like this is much more readable: > ... > I'll hold on to that (plus an adjustment to the comment below to match, > and perhaps a test for this negative-match case) for a day or so to give > anybody else a chance to comment, and then send out a v2 tomorrow. Thanks, and surely that is very readable. Alternatively, I think you can just compare refname and rule until they diverge, without doing any special casing for per-cent on the rule side inside the loop. If you do not find any difference, or the byte that differ is not the per-cent at the beginning of "%.*s" on the rule side, they they do not match.
