From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:27:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] config: make parsing stack struct independent from actual data source
Message-ID: <20130312192737.GF17099@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130312162734.GB4704@sandbox-ub.fritz.box>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:27:35PM +0100, Heiko Voigt wrote:

> > Would a union be more appropriate here? We do not ever have to pass it
> > directly as a parameter, since we pass the "struct config_source" to the
> > method functions.
> > 
> > It's still possible to screw up using a union, but it's slightly harder
> > than screwing up using a void pointer. And I do not think we need the
> > run-time flexibility offered by the void pointer in this case.
> 
> No we do not need the void pointer flexibility. But that means every new
> source would need to add to this union. Junio complained about that fact
> when I first added the extra members directly to the struct. A union
> does not waste that much space and we get some seperation using the
> union members. Since this struct is local only I think that should be
> ok.

Right. I think that is not a big deal, as we are not exposing this
struct outside of the config.c; any additions would need to add a new
git_config_from_foo function, anyway.

-Peff