On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> * I am expecting that the new one yet to be introduced will not
> share the huge "switch (selector)" part, but does its own things
> in a separate function with a similar structure. The only thing
> common between these two functions would be the structure
> (i.e. it has a big "switch(selector)" that does different things
> depending on REF_SELECT_*) and a call to clear_* function.
Yep. The "new one" is demonstrated in 5/5.
> If we were to add a new kind of REF_SELECT_* (say
> REF_SELECT_NOTES just for the sake of being concrete), what
> changes will be needed to the code if the addition of "use reflog
> from this class of refs for decoration" feature was done with or
> without this step? I have a suspicion that the change will be
> simpler without this step.
The switch/case is to deal with new REF_SELECT_* (at least it's how I
imagine it). What I was worried about was, when a user adds
--select-notes, they may not be aware that it's in the same
all/branches/tags/remotes group that's supposed to work with
--decorate-reflog as well, and as a result "--decorate-reflog
--select-notes" is the same as "--select-notes".
With the switch/case, when you add a new enum item, at the least the
compiler should warn about unhandled cases. And we can have a new
"case REF_SELECT_NOTES:" for both --exclude and --decorate-reflog.
Without the switch/case, I guess it's still possible to do something
like
if (!strcmp(arg, "--select-notes")) {
if (preceded_by_exclude())
does_one_thing();
else if (preceded_by_decorate_reflog())
does_another_thing();
}
It's probably easier to maintain though, if all
decorate-reflog-related things are grouped together, rather than
spread out per option like the above.
--
Duy
