First we look for "auto,", then we try "always,", then we fall back to
the default, which is to do exactly the same thing as we do for "auto,".
The amount of code duplication isn't huge, but still: reading this code
carefully requires spending at least *some* time on making sure the two
blocks of code are indeed identical.
Rearrange the checks so that we end with the default case,
opportunistically consuming the "auto," which may or may not be there.
In the "always," case, we don't actually *do* anything, so if we were
into golfing, we'd just write the whole thing as a single
if (!skip_prefix(begin, "always,", &begin)) {
...
}
If we ever learn something new besides "always," and "auto," we'd need
to pull things apart again. Plus we still need somewhere to place the
comment. Let's focus on code de-duplication rather than golfing for now.
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx>
---
pretty.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pretty.c b/pretty.c
index a4e5fc5c50..6a4264dd01 100644
--- a/pretty.c
+++ b/pretty.c
@@ -1076,13 +1076,11 @@ static size_t parse_color(struct strbuf *sb, /* in UTF-8 */
if (!end)
return 0;
- if (skip_prefix(begin, "auto,", &begin)) {
- if (!want_color(c->pretty_ctx->color))
- return end - placeholder + 1;
- } else if (skip_prefix(begin, "always,", &begin)) {
+ if (skip_prefix(begin, "always,", &begin)) {
/* nothing to do; we do not respect want_color at all */
} else {
/* the default is the same as "auto" */
+ skip_prefix(begin, "auto,", &begin);
if (!want_color(c->pretty_ctx->color))
return end - placeholder + 1;
}
--
2.49.0.472.ge94155a9ec
