On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:29:00AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote:
>
>> get_remote_ref_states() has three callers, but each is interested in
>> slightly different information. Give it a bit-field flag so that callers
>> can specify which pieces of information they need.
>
> Hmph. I think this is probably an indication that
> get_remote_ref_states() should really be 3 functions:
>
> common_stuff();
> query_one();
> query_two();
>
> and then callers can choose the subset they are interested in.
>
> Which is really more or less equivalent; it just seems like extra
> obfuscation to have a single function with a bit-field.
I see your hmph and raise you a hmph. :-)
Well, I _had_ tried as you suggested first, and thought it yuckier. It
would actually be more like:
caller1() {
setup_for_get();
get_thing_one();
}
caller2() {
setup_for_get();
get_thing_two();
}
caller3() {
if (query) {
setup_for_get();
get_thing_one();
get_thing_two();
get_thing_three();
} else {
get_thing_one_noquery()
get_thing_two_noquery();
}
As opposed to:
caller1() {
get_things(ONE)
}
caller2() {
get_things(TWO)
}
caller3() {
things = 0;
if (query)
things = (ONE|TWO|THREE)
get_things(things)
}
I'm not sure why passing a flag saying what you want is obfuscating.
Also, I did find other places in git that do this sort of thing (e.g.,
get_remote_heads).
(Awaiting Junio's lucid reply explaining why my justification is bogus.) :-)
j.
--
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
