karthik nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> karthik nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Could you elaborate on why you think this is an over-optimization? We >>> don't loose functionality with this, nor do we have to have add >>> additional code to handle the typecasting to `struct repository *` if >>> needed. But would definitely like to resolve anything I missed. >> >> I do not know if it is an optimization, but if you know it is of a >> specific type, casting back and force with "void *" loses type >> safety, no? > > That is true of course, I just thought that is the price to pay in C for > having to deal with generic data propagation. In the end I'm okay with > both scenarios, I see merits both ways. I do tend to incline on the > generic version in v2, since it is a lot more expandable. That said, I see v1 is merged into `next` [1]. I think we should keep it that way and like you said modify it in the future if needed to add varargs or another `void *` argument. Thanks [1]: https://github.com/gitster/git/commit/668c0913f5803ebcc3b0b1f13e6cd49503194869
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
