From: Jeff King Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:34:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] ref-filter: use strbuf_split_str_omit_term() Message-ID: <20160216223451.GB9014@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:09:53PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > My initial reaction was negative due to the heavy review burden this > series has demanded thus far, however, my mind was changing even as I > composed the above response. In retrospect, I think I'd be okay seeing > a v6, for the following reasons: > > - I already ended up reviewing the the suggested new changes pretty > closely as a side-effect of reading your proposal. > > - It would indeed be nice to avoid introducing > strbuf_split_str_omit_term() in the first place; thus one less thing > to worry about if someone ever takes on the task of retiring the > strbuf_split interface. > > - It should be only a minimal amount of work for Karthik, thus > turnaround time should be short. > > So, I think I'm fine with it, if Karthik is game. I started to write up a commit message for my proposed change. But it did make me think of a counter-argument. Right now we parse "%(align:10,middle)" but do not allow "%(align: 10, middle)". Should we? Or perhaps: might we? If the answer is yes, we are likely better off with strbuf_split, because then we are only a strbuf_trim() away from making that work. -Peff