Re: [PATCH] Small cache_tree_write refactor.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:38:16AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > --- a/cache-tree.c
> > +++ b/cache-tree.c
> > @@ -369,10 +369,8 @@ int cache_tree_update(struct cache_tree *it,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static void write_one(struct cache_tree *it,
> > - char *path,
> > - int pathlen,
> > - struct strbuf *buffer)
> > +static void write_one(struct strbuf *buffer, struct cache_tree *it,
> > + const char *path, int pathlen)
>
> I don't know... is this really needed? In some other projects, the coding
> standard prefers the parameters in "in"..."out" order.
Well, this is thought in an OO way, buffer would be the "this". This
method could be named strbuf_addtree(...) hence I felt that having the
buffer as a first argument to be right.
But I don't care that much about that.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>