On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Unless you count "I want to write differently from what was
>>>> suggested" is a desirable thing to do, I do not see a point in
>>>> favouring the above that uses an extra variable and skip_prefix()
>>>> over what I gave you as "how about" patch. But whatever.
>>>
>>> The skip_prefix was there before, so it stuck there.
>
> Sorry, but I thought this "parsing update strategy" was all new
> code.
I meant previous patches or in my mind. That's why I was hesitant to
throw out the skip_prefix.
>
>>> Also it seems a bit more high level to me hence easier to read,
>>> (though I am biased). I'll use your suggestion.
>>
>> and it doesn't crash when passing in value == NULL.
>> (We don't do that currently, just a side observation)
>
> Hmph. If you pass str==NULL with prefix="!" to what we have below,
> I would think the first iteration would try to read from *str and do
> a bizarre thing.
>
> static inline int skip_prefix(const char *str, const char *prefix,
> const char **out)
> {
> do {
> if (!*prefix) {
> *out = str;
> return 1;
> }
> } while (*str++ == *prefix++);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Puzzled.
And there I was asserting properties about methods
without looking them up.
ok.
--
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
