On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:55:32AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote:
> 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:
OK. My comment was along the lines of "why didn't you think of doing it
this way first?" but apparently you did. ;)
> I'm not sure why passing a flag saying what you want is obfuscating.
It doesn't have to be. But from your description and my cursory look
over the code, it seemed like get_remote_ref_states was really
conflating several unrelated things. So breaking it apart would make
sense for the same reason we have "strlen" and "strchr" as separate
functions and not "string_ops(s, WANT_STRLEN)": the function is our
basic unit of reusable work.
But from your description:
> caller1() {
> setup_for_get();
> get_thing_one();
> }
I didn't realize the commonality was actual setup; I thought it was "do
a list of 5 things, but the first 2 are common, and then callers may
want to some mix of the other 3".
So I think your original patch is fine.
-Peff
--
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
