Re: [PATCH] [GSOC] ref-filter: solve bugs caused by enumeration

[ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>]

> If that is truly the concern (I do not know without measuring),
> perhaps we should add a member next to the union to say which one of
> the union members is valid, so that you can say
>
>     if (atom->atom_type == ATOM_TYPE_REMOTE_REF &&
>         atom->u.remote_ref.push)
>
> (introduce an enum and define ATOM_TYPE_* after the member in the
> union).
>

Yes, I think so. Since the content of this part needs to be modified for
 the parsing of all atoms, I will put it in a separate topic to complete.

> That would help futureproofing the code even further, as a new
> synonym of "push" introduced laster [*] would not invalidate the check you are
> adding there.
>

Yes, this enhances its generalization ability.

>
> [Footnote]
>
> * remote_ref_atom_parser() in the future may begin like so:
>
> -       if (!strcmp(atom->name, "push") || starts_with(atom->name, "push:"))
> +       if (!strcmp(atom->name, "push") || starts_with(atom->name, "push:") ||
> +           !strcmp(atom->name, "a-synonym-for-push"))
>                 atom->u.remote_ref.push = 1;
>

--
ZheNing Hu