g...@jeffhostetler.com writes:
> From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffh...@microsoft.com>
>
> Add basic routines to generate data in JSON format.
And the point of having capability to write JSON data in our
codebase is...?
> diff --git a/json-writer.c b/json-writer.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..89a6abb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/json-writer.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
> +#include "cache.h"
> +#include "json-writer.h"
> +
> +static char g_ch_open[2] = { '{', '[' };
> +static char g_ch_close[2] = { '}', ']' };
What's "g_" prefix?
> +
> +/*
> + * Append JSON-quoted version of the given string to 'out'.
> + */
> +static void append_quoted_string(struct strbuf *out, const char *in)
> +{
> + strbuf_addch(out, '"');
> + for (/**/; *in; in++) {
> + unsigned char c = (unsigned char)*in;
It is clear enough to lose /**/, i.e.
for (; *in; in++) {
but for this one. I wonder if
unsigned char c;
strbuf_addch(out, '"');
while ((c = *in++) != '\0') {
...
is easier to follow, though.
> +static inline void begin(struct json_writer *jw, int is_array)
> +{
> + ALLOC_GROW(jw->levels, jw->nr + 1, jw->alloc);
> +
> + jw->levels[jw->nr].level_is_array = !!is_array;
> + jw->levels[jw->nr].level_is_empty = 1;
An element of this array is a struct that represents a level, and
everybody who accesses an element of that type knows it is talking
about a level by the field that has the array being named as
.levels[] (also [*1*]). In such a context, it is a bit too loud to
name the fields with level_$blah. IOW,
struct json_writer_level
{
unsigned is_array : 1;
unsigned is_empty : 1;
};
> +struct json_writer_level
> +{
> + unsigned level_is_array : 1;
> + unsigned level_is_empty : 1;
> +};
> +
> +struct json_writer
> +{
> + struct json_writer_level *levels;
> + int nr, alloc;
> + struct strbuf json;
> +};
[Footnote]
*1* I personally prefer to call an array of things "thing[]", not
"things[]", because then you can refer to an individual element
e.g. "thing[4]" and read it as "the fourth thing".
Unless the code often treats an array as a whole, that is, in
which case, things[] is OK as you'll be calling the whole thing
with the plural name (e.g. call that function and give all the
things by passing things[]).
In this case, one level instance is an element of a stack, and
the code would be accessing one level at a time most of the
time, so "writer.level[4].is_empty" would read more naturally
than "writer.levels[4].level_is_empty".
