From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256691FAEB for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751843AbdFJGfW (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2017 02:35:22 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:37462 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751741AbdFJGfV (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2017 02:35:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 29056 invoked by uid 109); 10 Jun 2017 06:35:20 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 28977 invoked by uid 111); 10 Jun 2017 06:35:21 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 02:35:21 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 10 Jun 2017 02:35:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 02:35:19 -0400 From: Jeff King To: SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] revision.c: use skip_prefix() in handle_revision_opt() Message-ID: <20170610063518.6ihim2za6vil24pt@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170602201143.6avkhp224no3dukb@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170609181733.6793-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170609181733.6793-1-szeder.dev@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:17:28PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > would let us do: > > > > if (match_opt(arg, "--early-output"), &optarg)) { > > int count = optarg ? atoi(optarg) : 100; > > ... > > } > > > > which is a little nicer and could maybe help other options (I didn't see > > any, though). > > Besides '--show-linear-break' and '--pretty', other options that could > benefit from this, i.e. long options with an optional argument, are > '--expand-tabs', '--abbrev' and '--no-walk'. These are handled > differently than '--early--output' and '--show-linear-break': each is > covered by two if branches, one with and one without the optional > argument, i.e.: > > } else if (!strcmp(arg, "--option")) { > ... > } else if (starts_with(arg, "--option=")) { > ... > } else ... I think those multi-branch cases end up as an improvement with a helper: if (match_opt(arg, "--no-walk", &optarg)) { if (!optarg || !strcmp(optarg, "sorted")) revs->no_walk = REVISION_WALK_NO_WALK_SORTED; else if (!strcmp(optarg, "unsorted")) revs->no_walk = REVISION_WALK_NO_WALK_UNSORTED; else return error(...); } > '--pretty=' couldn't benefit, though, because it is special in that > it's equivalent with '--format=', and the two are handled in the same > branch. I think you could still handle them both in the same branch, like: if (match_opt(arg, "--pretty", &optarg) || skip_prefix(arg, "--format=", &optarg)) { revs->verbose_header = 1; revs->pretty-given = 1; /* OK to pass NULL for --pretty case */ get_commit_format(optarg, revs); } > So inherently there are a few repeated option names and variable > assignments, and that's not so good. However, refactoring these to > use match_opt() adds 40% more lines than it removes and, more > importantly, increases the number of nested conditions. Subjectively > I don't think it's better, so I went with the "follow the conventions > of the surrounding code" rule for the update. I care less about lines of boilerplate code and more about repeated logic. In the --pretty example above, the first two lines of the block are common to both --pretty and --pretty=. If they ever need to change, somebody has to update two spots. Anyway. I certainly don't insist on you working on this, especially if you don't agree with the aesthetics. Just fixing the actual bugs would be sufficient for my review. ;) > As far as I can tell, parse-options doesn't handle options with an > optional argument by itself, but only with callback functions, so it > is no help here as it is. There's a flag, PARSE_OPT_OPTARG, which would do what you want. But I agree that converting the whole thing to parse-options would be a lot of work (quite a few of these really aren't just "this is a string", but would need independent callback functions. -Peff