Re: [PATCH 2/2] teach git-config to output large integers

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 21, 2013, 03:00 UTC
Message-ID: <20130821030036.GD25296@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130820225745.GL4110@google.com>

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:57:45PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > I kind of hate the name "--ulong". I wanted to call it "--size" or
> > something and abstract away the actual platform representation, and just
> > make it "big enough for file sizes".
> 
> Yes, something like --size would be more pleasant.
> 
> It could still use unsigned long internally.  My only worry about
> --size is that it does not make it clear we are talking about file
> sizes and not in-memory sizes (size_t), and I'm not too worried about
> that.

I almost sent it as "--size" with unsigned long internally. But try writing the documentation for it. You want to say something like "it's big enough to handle file sizes". Except that on 32-bit, it's _not_. It's only 4G.

You really want something that uses off_t internally, so 32-bit systems with largefile support do the sane thing. But now you have no way of emulating the way that git parses stuff internally. You cannot say "git config --size core.bigFileThreshold" and get the same results that git will have internally when it looks at that file (because it uses "unsigned long" internally").

I think there is an argument to be made that git should be using off_t internally for such things. But it is a lot of code to change and check, and I'm not sure that anybody even really cares that much.

> Style: uncuddled "else", stray blank line.  (The former was already
> there, but it still stands out.)  I think

Yes, I was trying to follow the existing style (but obviously the extra line was just a typo).

Show 13 quoted lines

> 		if (types == TYPE_INT) {
> 			...
> 		} else if (types == TYPE_ULONG) {
> 			...
> 		} else if (types == TYPE_BOOL) {
> 			...
> 		} else if (types == TYPE_BOOL_OR_INT) {
> 			...
> 		} else {
> 			...
> 		}
> 
> would be easiest to read.

But that is adding brackets for one-liner conditional bodies that do not need it. Which is more evil?

My usual method is to do what looks the most readable to me, but I admit I have a hard time using my intuition with the cuddled-elses, as I think they look terrible (yes, I'm aware they are in our style guide and I am not arguing to take them out, only that my personal sense of "looks good" is helpless with them).

-Peff