Re: [PATCH v3 11/19] dir.c: use a single struct exclude_list per source of excludes

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> > Adam Spiers <git@adamspiers.org> writes:
> >
> >> diff --git a/builtin/clean.c b/builtin/clean.c
> >> index 0c7b3d0..bd18b88 100644
> >> --- a/builtin/clean.c
> >> +++ b/builtin/clean.c
> >> @@ -97,9 +97,10 @@ int cmd_clean(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> >>  	if (!ignored)
> >>  		setup_standard_excludes(&dir);
> >>  
> >> +	add_exclude_list(&dir, EXC_CMDL);
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < exclude_list.nr; i++)
> >>  		add_exclude(exclude_list.items[i].string, "", 0,
> >> -			    &dir.exclude_list[EXC_CMDL]);
> >> +			    &dir.exclude_list_groups[EXC_CMDL].ary[0]);
> >
> > This looks somewhat ugly for two reasons.
> >
> >  * The abstraction add_exclude() offers to its callers is just to
> >    let them add one pattern to the list of patterns for the kind
> >    (here, EXC_CMDL); why should they care about .ary[0] part?  Are
> >    there cases any sane caller (not the implementation of the
> >    exclude_list_group machinery e.g. add_excludes_from_... function)
> >    may want to call it with .ary[1]?  I do not think of any.
> >    Shouldn't the public API function add_exclude() take a pointer to
> >    the list group itself?
> >
> >  * When naming an array of things, we tend to prefer naming it
> >
> >      type thing[count]
> >
> >    so that the second element can be called "thing[2]" and not
> >    "things[2]".  dir.exclude_list_group[EXC_CMDL] reads better.
> 
> Also, "ary[]" is a bad name, even as an implementation detail, for
> two reasons: it is naming it after its type (being an "array") not
> after what it is (if it holds the patterns from the same information
> source, e.g. file, togeter, "src" might be a better name), and it
> uses rather unusual abbreviation (I haven't seen "array" shortened
> to "ary" anywhere else).