Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> FWIW, I had a similar thought when reading the original thread. I also
> noted that all of the callers here pass "1" for the "fatal" parameter,
> and that they are either bools or single strings. I wonder if:
>
> void write_state_bool(struct am_state *state, const char *name, int v)
> {
> write_file(am_path(state, name), 1, "%s\n", v ? "t" : "f");
> }
>
> would make the call-sites even easier to read (and of course the "\n"
> would be dropped here if it does migrate up to write_file()).
>
>> @@ -634,6 +641,9 @@ int write_file(const char *path, int fatal, const char
>> *fmt, ...)
>> va_start(params, fmt);
>> strbuf_vaddf(&sb, fmt, params);
>> va_end(params);
>> + if (sb.len)
>> + strbuf_complete_line(&sb);
>> +
>
> I think the "if" here is redundant; strbuf_complete_line already handles
> it.
True. And I like your write_state_bool() wrapper (which should be
"static void" to the builtin/am.c) very much.
On top of that, I think the right thing to do to write_file() would
be to first clean-up the second parameter "fatal" to an "unsigned
flags" whose (1<<0) bit is "fatal", (1<<1) bit is "binary", and make
this new call to "strbuf_complete_line()" only when "binary" bit is
not set.
The new comment I added before write_file() function needs to be
adjusted if we were to do this, obviously.
--
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
