On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 03:27:29PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 01:10:59AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:38 AM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 06:34:55PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:02:24PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Add the given bytes to the buffer. Returns 0 on success, > > > > > + * REFTABLE_OUT_OF_MEMORY_ERROR on allocation failure. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +int reftable_buf_add(struct reftable_buf *buf, const void *data, size_t len); > > > > > > > > Is there a reason that data is a void-pointer here and not a const char > > > > *? > > > > > > Only that it emulates `strbuf_add()`, which also uses a void pointer. > > > > The reason for that is because strbuf is a generic byte-array which > > may contain embedded NULs, and the `const void *` plus `len` > > emphasizes this property, whereas `const char *` would imply a > > C-string with no embedded NULs. > > Thanks, that was the explanation I was missing. Perhaps it is worth > re-stating in the commit message here to avoid confusing readers like I > was when I first read Patrick's patch ;-). Does it make sense to explicitly state how the interfaces look like though? I don't do that for the other functions either, and for most of the part I just reuse the exact same function arguments as we had with the strbuf interface. Patrick
