On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Matthieu Moy
<matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> Karthik Nayak <karthik....@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> --- a/ref-filter.c
>> +++ b/ref-filter.c
>> @@ -1195,6 +1197,11 @@ void ref_array_sort(struct ref_sorting *sorting,
>> struct ref_array *array)
>> static void ref_formatting(struct ref_formatting_state *state,
>> struct atom_value *v, struct strbuf *value)
>> {
>> + if (state->color) {
>> + strbuf_addstr(value, state->color);
>> + free(state->color);
>> + state->color = NULL;
>> + }
>> strbuf_addf(value, "%s", v->s);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1266,6 +1273,13 @@ static void emit(const char *cp, const char *ep)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void apply_pseudo_state(struct ref_formatting_state *state,
>> + struct atom_value *v)
>> +{
>> + if (v->color)
>> + state->color = (char *)v->s;
>> +}
>> +
>> void show_ref_array_item(struct ref_array_item *info, const char *format,
>> int quote_style)
>> {
>> const char *cp, *sp, *ep;
>
> It's not clear enough in the code and history that these these two
> functions are symmetrical.
>
> You can find better names. 'apply_pseudo_state' seems wrong it two ways:
> it does not _apply_ the state, but it stores it. And it's a "pseudo-atom
> related state", but not a "pseudo-state".
>
> How about
>
> ref_formatting -> apply_formatting_state
> apply_pseudo_state -> store_formatting_state
>
> ?
Yes, your suggested naming scheme is better. Ill adopt this.
>
> Actually, I would even call these functions right from
> show_ref_array_item, so that the result look like this:
>
> if (atomv->pseudo_atom)
> store_formatting_state(&state, atomv);
> else {
> apply_formatting_state(&state, atomv);
> reset_formatting_state(&state);
> print_value(&state, atomv);
> }
This would eliminate that extra strbuf in print_value() wouldn't it,
but this would also mean
that we replace the value in atomv to hold the new formatted value.
Sounds good to me.
Thanks :)
>
> In the history, if you are to introduce a dumb version of ref_formatting
> in PATCH 1, I think you should also introduce a dumb (actually, totally
> empty) version of apply_pseudo_state. Then, further patches would just
> add a few lines in each function, and ...
>
>> @@ -1281,7 +1295,10 @@ void show_ref_array_item(struct ref_array_item *info,
>> const char *format, int qu
>> if (cp < sp)
>> emit(cp, sp);
>> get_ref_atom_value(info, parse_ref_filter_atom(sp + 2, ep),
>> &atomv);
>> - print_value(&state, atomv);
>> + if (atomv->pseudo_atom)
>> + apply_pseudo_state(&state, atomv);
>> + else
>> + print_value(&state, atomv);
>> }
>
> ... this hunk would belong to PATCH 1.
>
I'll add a placeholder for this in the PATCH 1. Thanks :D
--
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
