Hi,
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> >
> > > if (any_files) {
> > > - if (o->merge) {
> > > + if (skip_entry) {
> > > + do
> > > + o->pos++;
> > > + while (o->pos < active_nr &&
> > > + !strcmp(active_cache[o->pos]->name,
> > > + src[0]->name));
> > > + } else if (o->merge) {
> >
> > Maybe it is just me, but I would have thought
> >
> > while (++o->pos < active_nr)
> > if (strcmp(active_cache[o->pos]->name,
> > src[0]->name))
> > break;
> >
> > more readable. But that's maybe because I have trouble with do ...
> > while constructs logically (I like to see the loop condition first,
> > then the loop body).
>
> I find yours less readable, because the loop condition is an exceptional
> case (this is the last entry, so we run out of active_cache before
> finding anything else), and you've got the actual effect of the loop in
> the condition instead of the body, and I find using the value of ++x or
> x++ a bit confusing outside of regular idioms. I'd go for:
>
> o->pos++;
> while (o->pos < active_nr &&
> !strcmp(active_cache[o->pos]->name,
> src[0]->name))
> o->pos++;
>
> if you care, though; it's not bad to make it clear we're skipping the
> first of these entries based on a different consideration from the rest
> (the first is the entry we decided to skip, and the rest are ones that
> match it in filename).
Well, I still find mine more readable (because it reflects how I think, I
guess), but I do not care deeply enough. Let's take your original.
Ciao,
Dscho
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
