Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] strbuf: introduce strbuf_split_str_without_term()

[Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:
>> strbuf: introduce strbuf_split_str_without_term()
>
> s/without/omit/
>
>> The current implementation of 'strbuf_split_buf()' includes the
>> terminator at the end of each strbuf post splitting. Add an option
>> wherein we can drop the terminator if desired. In this context
>> introduce a wrapper function 'strbuf_split_str_without_term()' which
>
> s/without/omit/
>

Oops! will change that,

>> splits a given string into strbufs without including the terminator.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <Karthik.188@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/strbuf.c b/strbuf.c
>> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ void strbuf_tolower(struct strbuf *sb)
>>  struct strbuf **strbuf_split_buf(const char *str, size_t slen,
>> -                                int terminator, int max)
>> +                                int terminator, int max, int omit_term)
>>  {
>>         struct strbuf **ret = NULL;
>>         size_t nr = 0, alloc = 0;
>> @@ -123,14 +123,15 @@ struct strbuf **strbuf_split_buf(const char *str, size_t slen,
>>
>>         while (slen) {
>>                 int len = slen;
>> +               const char *end = NULL;
>>                 if (max <= 0 || nr + 1 < max) {
>> -                       const char *end = memchr(str, terminator, slen);
>> +                       end = memchr(str, terminator, slen);
>>                         if (end)
>>                                 len = end - str + 1;
>>                 }
>>                 t = xmalloc(sizeof(struct strbuf));
>>                 strbuf_init(t, len);
>> -               strbuf_add(t, str, len);
>> +               strbuf_add(t, str, len - !!end * !!omit_term);
>
> This version of the patch with its minimal[1] change is much easier to
> review for correctness than the original attempt[2].
>
> [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/281882
> [2]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/281189
>
>>                 ALLOC_GROW(ret, nr + 2, alloc);
>>                 ret[nr++] = t;
>>                 str += len;
>> diff --git a/strbuf.h b/strbuf.h
>> index 6ae7a72..a865a74 100644
>> --- a/strbuf.h
>> +++ b/strbuf.h
>> @@ -450,11 +450,12 @@ static inline int strbuf_strip_suffix(struct strbuf *sb, const char *suffix)
>>  /**
>>   * Split str (of length slen) at the specified terminator character.
>>   * Return a null-terminated array of pointers to strbuf objects
>> - * holding the substrings.  The substrings include the terminator,
>> - * except for the last substring, which might be unterminated if the
>> - * original string did not end with a terminator.  If max is positive,
>> - * then split the string into at most max substrings (with the last
>> - * substring containing everything following the (max-1)th terminator
>> + * holding the substrings.  The substrings include the terminator if
>> + * the value of omit_term is '0' else the terminator is excluded.  The
>
> Perhaps just say "if omit_term is false" rather than "if the value of ... is 0".
>
>> + * last substring, might be unterminated if the original string did
>> + * not end with a terminator.  If max is positive, then split the
>
> This bit about the last substring is perhaps too disconnected from the
> previous sentence. What if you re-word the entire thing something like
> this:
>
>     If omit_term is true, the terminator will be stripped from all
>     substrings. Otherwise, substrings will include the terminator,
>     except for the final substring, if the original string lacked a
>     terminator.
>

Im quite bad at this, thanks :)

>>
>> This version of the patch with its minimal[1] change is much easier to
>> review for correctness than the original attempt[2].
>
> Perhaps worthy of a Helped-by:?

Definitely! Sorry for not including that, slipped off my mind.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak