From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, gitster@pobox.com,
sbeller@google.com, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] decorate: clean up and document API
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:32:49 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171211103249.e34385be4688734442659e71@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171208095510.GA29626@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 04:55:11 -0500
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, compiling and running the code
> ensures that those things actually work. On the other hand, I expect you
> can make a much clearer example if instead of having running code, you
> show snippets of almost-code.
>
> E.g.:
>
> struct decoration d = { NULL };
>
> add_decoration(&d, obj, "foo");
> ...
> str = lookup_decoration(obj);
>
> pretty much gives the relevant overview, with very little boilerplate.
> Yes, it omits things like the return value of add_decoration(), but
> those sorts of details are probably better left to the function
> docstrings.
The part about iterating over all entries should probably also be shown
too. Besides that, I'm OK with having a simplified example in
documentation too, but I'll wait and see if others have any opinions
before making any changes.
> Other than that philosophical point, the documentation you added looks
> pretty good to me. Two possible improvements to the API we could do on
> top:
>
> 1. Should there be a DECORATION_INIT macro (possibly taking the "name"
> as an argument)? (Actually, the whole name thing seems like a
> confusing and bad API design in the first place).
Agreed about the "name" thing. I'll add a DECORATION_INIT when I make
the next reroll, but I think that having it with no argument is best
(and instantiating "name" with NULL).
> 2. This is really just an oidmap to a void pointer. I wonder if we
> ought to be wrapping that code (I think we still want some
> interface so that the caller doesn't have to declare their own
> structs).
It is slightly different from oidmap in that this uses "struct object *"
as a key whereas oidmap uses "struct object_id", meaning that a user of
"decorate" must already have objects allocated or be willing to allocate
them, whereas a user of "oidmap" doesn't.
Having said that, it is true that perhaps we have too many data
structures doing similar things.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-11 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-08 0:14 [PATCH] decorate: clean up and document API Jonathan Tan
2017-12-08 9:55 ` Jeff King
2017-12-11 18:32 ` Jonathan Tan [this message]
2017-12-15 10:03 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171211103249.e34385be4688734442659e71@google.com \
--to=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=johannes.schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sbeller@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).