From: Eric Sunshine <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Martin Ågren" <email@example.com> Cc: Git List <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Junio C Hamano <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] worktree: simplify search for unique worktree Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 16:01:57 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAPig+cQ871p8+oQdBBY=ebDdjDWfa5NvEMroitEmk4Db8DfLvA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAN0heSrUWiZ_xar3G5rZG-c=8OVp5-eByS6rMXOw9wfTA8kmbA@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 3:48 PM Martin Ågren <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 21:28, Eric Sunshine <email@example.com> wrote: > > Although this change appears to be correct and does simplify the code, > > I think it also makes it a bit more opaque. With the explicit > > `nr_found == 1`, it is quite obvious that the function considers > > "success" to be when one and only one entry is found and any other > > number is failure. But with the revised code, it is harder to work out > > precisely what the conditions are. > > Thanks for commenting. I found the original trickier than it had to be. > It spreads out the logic in several places and is careful to short-cut > the loop. My first thought was "why doesn't this just use the standard > form?". But I'm open to the idea that it might be a fairly personal > standard form... If there's any risk that someone else comes along and > simplifies this to use a `nr_found` variable, then maybe file this under > code churning? Maybe. Dunno. Even with the suggested function comment, I still find that the revised code has a higher cognitive load because the reader has to remember or figure out mentally what `found` contains by the `return found;` at the end of the function. Compare that with the old code, in which the reader doesn't have to remember or figure out anything. The final `return nr_found == 1 ? found : NULL;` condition spells out everything the reader needs to know -- even if the reader didn't pay close attention to the meat of the function. So, we each have a different take on the apparent complexity. > > Having said that, I think a simple > > comment before the function would suffice to clear up the opaqueness. > > Perhaps something like: > > > > /* If exactly one worktree matches 'target', return it, else NULL. */ > > That's a good suggestion regardless. The function is so small that the increased cognitive load (for me) in the rewrite probably doesn't matter at all, so I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Keeping the patch (amended with the suggested comment) or dropping it are both suitable options.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-10 20:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-09-10 19:03 [PATCH 0/8] various wt-status/worktree cleanups Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 1/8] wt-status: replace sha1 mentions with oid Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 2/8] wt-status: print to s->fp, not stdout Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 3/8] wt-status: introduce wt_status_state_free_buffers() Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 4/8] worktree: drop useless call to strbuf_reset Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:15 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-09-10 19:39 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:49 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-09-12 14:02 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 5/8] worktree: update renamed variable in comment Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 6/8] worktree: rename copy-pasted variable Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 20:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-12 14:01 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:29 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 7/8] worktree: use skip_prefix to parse target Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:03 ` [PATCH 8/8] worktree: simplify search for unique worktree Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 19:28 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-09-10 19:48 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-10 20:01 ` Eric Sunshine [this message] 2020-09-10 21:08 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-09-12 3:49 ` [PATCH 0/8] various wt-status/worktree cleanups Taylor Blau 2020-09-12 14:03 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] " Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] wt-status: replace sha1 mentions with oid Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] wt-status: print to s->fp, not stdout Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] wt-status: introduce wt_status_state_free_buffers() Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] worktree: inline `worktree_ref()` into its only caller Martin Ågren 2020-09-28 5:30 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-09-28 6:57 ` Martin Ågren 2020-09-28 7:16 ` Eric Sunshine 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] worktree: update renamed variable in comment Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] worktree: rename copy-pasted variable Martin Ågren 2020-09-27 13:15 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] worktree: use skip_prefix to parse target Martin Ågren
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='CAPig+cQ871p8+oQdBBY=ebDdjDWfa5NvEMroitEmk4Db8DfLvA@mail.gmail.com' \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 8/8] worktree: simplify search for unique worktree' \ /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
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this 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).