Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 08:27:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> [Footnote] >> >> * The fact that cmd_foo() is called is not a hygiene thing to do in >> the first place, and in the longer term #leftoverbits we may need >> to refactor the thing further, into a proper library-ish reusable >> helper function that can be used to compute name_rev() any number >> of times, plus cmd_name_rev() and this caller that call it. > > Agreed. There have been several instances of this scattered across the > codebase. The fix is quite ugly in my opinion, but it would be a bigger > topic to refactor those cases properly, so I refrained from doing so as > part of this series. Oh, I agree that it would be a "after all the dust settles" kind of clean-up. Thanks.
