Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] add strbuf_set operations

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:50:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> I am on the fence.
> >>
> >> I have this suspicion that the addition of strbuf_set() would *only*
> >> help when the original written with reset-and-then-add sequence was
> >> suboptimal to begin with, and it helps *only* how the code reads,
> >> without correcting the fact that it is still doing unnecessary
> >> "first set to a value to be discarded and then reset to set the
> >> right value", sweeping the issue under the rug.
> >>
> > It is certainly possible that builtin/remote.c (PATCH 2/2) saw the most
> > benefit from this operation because it is so badly designed.  But this
> > seems unlikely given the review process around here ;-)
> >
> > The one case where it would be doing extra work is when a strbuf_set
> > replaces a strbuf_add that didn't previously have a strbuf_reset.
> > strbuf_set is not appropriate for all cases, as I mentioned in the
> > patch, but in some cases I think it makes it more readable.  And in this
> > case it would be doing a reset on an empty strbuf.  Is avoiding this
> > expense worth the reduction in readability?
> >
> > Also, as Eric Sunshine pointed out, being able to easily re-order
> > operations can make the code easier to maintain.
> >
> >> Repeated reset-and-then-add on the same strbuf used to be something
> >> that may indicate that the code is doing unnecessary work.  Now,
> >> repeated uses of strbuf_set on the same strbuf replaced that pattern
> >> to be watched for to spot wasteful code paths.
> >>
> > If a reset followed by and add was a rare occurrence I would tend to
> > agree more.
> 
> When composing my review of the builtin/remote.c changes, I wrote
> something like this:
> 
>     Although strbuf_set() does make the code a bit easier to read
>     when strbufs are repeatedly re-used, re-using a variable for
>     different purposes is generally considered poor programming
>     practice. It's likely that heavy re-use of strbufs has been
>     tolerated to avoid multiple heap allocations, but that may be a
>     case of premature (allocation) optimization, rather than good
>     programming. A different ("better") way to make the code more
>     readable and maintainable may be to ban re-use of strbufs for
>     different purposes.
> 
> But I deleted it before sending because it's a somewhat tangential
> issue not introduced by your changes. However, I do see strbuf_set()
> as a Band-Aid for the problem described above, rather than as a useful
> feature on its own. If the practice of re-using strbufs (as a
> premature optimization) ever becomes taboo, then strbuf_set() loses
> its value.
> 

> >> I dunno...
> >>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  strbuf.c                               | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  strbuf.h                               | 13 +++++++++++++
> >> >  3 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt b/Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt
> >> > index f9c06a7..ae9c9cc 100644
> >> > --- a/Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt
> >> > +++ b/Documentation/technical/api-strbuf.txt
> >> > @@ -149,6 +149,24 @@ Functions
> >> >     than zero if the first buffer is found, respectively, to be less than,
> >> >     to match, or be greater than the second buffer.
> >> >  /*----- add data in your buffer -----*/
> > ...
> >> >  static inline void strbuf_addch(struct strbuf *sb, int c)
> >> >  {
> >
> > --
> > Jeremiah Mahler
> > jmmahler@gmail.com
> > http://github.com/jmahler