Re: [PATCH 12/13] remote.c: refactor get_remote_ref_states()
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 24, 2009, 01:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090224010556.GA3847@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1235377892-96089-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 02:55:32AM -0500, Jay Soffian wrote:
> I see your hmph and raise you a hmph. :-) > > Well, I _had_ tried as you suggested first, and thought it yuckier. It > would actually be more like:
OK. My comment was along the lines of "why didn't you think of doing it this way first?" but apparently you did. ;)
> I'm not sure why passing a flag saying what you want is obfuscating.
It doesn't have to be. But from your description and my cursory look over the code, it seemed like get_remote_ref_states was really conflating several unrelated things. So breaking it apart would make sense for the same reason we have "strlen" and "strchr" as separate functions and not "string_ops(s, WANT_STRLEN)": the function is our basic unit of reusable work.
But from your description:
> caller1() {
> setup_for_get();
> get_thing_one();
> }I didn't realize the commonality was actual setup; I thought it was "do a list of 5 things, but the first 2 are common, and then callers may want to some mix of the other 3".
So I think your original patch is fine.
-Peff