From: Pierre Habouzit Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:40:01 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Small cache_tree_write refactor. Message-ID: <20070925114001.GB8308@artemis.corp> In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:38:16AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > 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