> On 26 Aug 2016, at 19:15, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Do you anticipate future need of non-gently variant of this >>> function? If so, perhaps a helper that takes a boolean "am I >>> working for the gently variant?" may help share more code. >> >> With helper you mean "an additional boolean parameter"? I don't >> see a need for a non-gently variant right now but I will >> add this parameter if you think it is a good idea. How would the >> signature look like? >> >> int packet_write_gently(const int fd_out, const char *buf, size_t size, int >> gentle) >> >> This would follow type_from_string_gently() in object.h. > > I actually imagined it would be more like your packet_write_fmt vs > packet_write_fmt_gently pair of functions. If you do not have an > immediate need for a non-gentle packet_write() right now, but you > still forsee that it is likely some other caller may want one, you > could still prepare for it by doing a static > > packet_write_1((const int fd_out, const char *buf, size_t size, int > gentle) > > and make packet_write_gently() call it with gentle=1, without > actually introducing packet_write() nobody yet calls.
I see. In that case I would like to keep packet_write_gently() as is because I don't see the need for a non-gently variant right now. If there is a need for packet_write() then we could just add it and move the packet_write_gently() code to packet_write_1() following your suggestion. No caller would need to change for this refactoring. If you strongly disagree then I would use the "two function" approach you suggested above right away, though. Thanks, Lars
