On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:02:21PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > We're about to introduce our own `reftable_buf` type to replace > `strbuf`. Get rid of the seldomly-used `strbuf_addf()` function such > that we have to reimplement one less function. Hmm. I count twelve calls to strbuf_addf() here in this patch that were rewritten in terms of snprintf()ing to a temporary buffer. So I am not sure that I agree that it is "seldomly-used". Sure, implementing fewer functions is nice, but I am not sure that forcing the caller to use snprintf() directly is necessarily a worthwhile trade-off. Part of me wishes that we didn't have to write our own `reftable_buf` in the first place. Could we use `strbuf` as-is and expose it through a generic reftable-specific interface that users of reftable fill in with a vtable or something? Thanks, Taylor
