Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> Matthieu Moy <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> OTOH, you are now accepting %(atom:) as a synonym to %(atom), and it's
>> not clear whether this is a deliberate decition.
>
> I would say so. When the caller wants to reject %(atom:), the
> caller can tell it by checking val[0] == '\0' and reject that.
>
> So it is better if you did not do this:
>
>> if (!body[1]) {
>> /* "atom_name:" */
>> *val = NULL;
>> return 1;
>> }
>
> which robs that information from the caller.
OK. Just dropping this part lets the code fall back to
/* "atom_name:... */
*val = body + 1;
return 1;
right below in my version. It also accepts it (return 1) but lets val
point to an empty string. Makes sense.
And indeed, without this, my code looks a lot like Karthik's one, just
dropping the "|| !body[1]" part in a condition.
In any case, I'd like to see "atom_name:" explicitly mentionned
somewhere in a comment, if only to make it clear that what is done with
it is deliberate (e.g. avoid having someone not following this
conversation later considering this %(atom:) thing to be a bug and try
to fix it).
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
