Junio C Hamano said the following on 04.02.2009 07:50:
Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Use of ample paragraph breaks would make it much easier to eyes.
Ok.
Also, the example shows how lines would look line in a mailmap file. I would avoid giving a false impression that the parser should take C++ style comment introducer // by using '#' which is a documented one (I suspect anything that follows the last angle bracket is simply ignored, though).
Right, it is, but I agree with your point.
@@ -86,6 +95,27 @@ Jane Doe <jane@desktop.(none)> Joe R. Developer <joe@xxxxxxxxxx>This context line was updated a few days ago (not a big deal, just in case you didn't know).
Right, I saw the patch on the list, but I based the patch series on master, which I don't think had the update at the time? Anyways, do you prefer the patches based on next instead? (Documentation/SubmittingPatches says master, but maybe that has changed)
+#if DEBUG_MAILMAP +#define debug_mm(...) fprintf(stderr, __VA_ARGS__) +#else +inline void debug_mm(const char *format, ...) {} +#endif"static inline void ...";
Sure. (I seriously hope that the compiler optimizes that empty function call away for me though, without specifying inline :-)
@@ -37,25 +117,65 @@ static int read_single_mailmap(struct string_list *map, const char *filename, ch ... + /* Locate 2nd name and email. Possible mappings in mailmap file are: + * proper_name <commit_email> + * proper_name <proper_email> <commit_email> + * proper_name <proper_email> commit_name <commit_email> + *//* * We tend to write a multi line comment block * like this. */
Ok.
+ do {
...
+ if ((left_bracket2 = strchr(right_bracket1, '<')) == NULL) + continue;
...
+ } while(0);Yuck. Is it just me or is this new codeblock especially denser than existing code? I wonder use of a few smaller helper functions (that the compiler may be able to inline without being told for us) would make this easier to read without funny-looking "do { ... if (...) continue; } while (0)" trick?
Heh, It was mostly a copy'n'paste from the previous code block, with minor tweaks and variable renaming. I'll factor things out to make it an easier read.
Two "char *tmp" in this scope are both decl-after-statement errors.
Yikes! I wonder why I never got any compiler notification about those. They should never have been there, sorry.
-- .marius [@trolltech.com] 'if you know what you're doing, it's not research'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
