Re: [PATCH 0/2] strbuf: improve API

> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
>> 1. The amount of added code complexity is small and quite
>>    encapsulated.
> 
> Actually, STRBUF_OWNS_MEMORY can even be seen as a simplification if
> done properly: we already have the case where the strbuf does not own
> the memory with strbuf_slopbuf. I already pointed places in
> strbuf_grow() which could be simplified after the patch. Re-reading the
> code it seems at lesat the call to strbuf_grow(sb, 0); in strbuf_detach
> becomes useless. The same in strbuf_attach() probably is, too.
> 
> So, the final strbuf.[ch] code might not be "worse" that the previous.
> 
> I'm unsure about the complexity of the future code using the new API. I
> don't forsee cases where using the new API would lead to a high
> maintenance cost, but I don't claim I considered all possible uses.
> 
>> 2. The ability to use strbufs without having to allocate memory might
>>    make enough *psychological* difference that it encourages some
>>    devs to use strbufs where they would otherwise have done manual
>>    memory management. I think this would be a *big* win in terms of
>>    potential bugs and security vulnerabilities avoided.
> 
> Note that this can also be seen as a counter-argument, since it
> may psychologically encourage people to micro-optimize code and use
> contributors/reviewers neurons to spend time on "shall this be on-stack
> or malloced?".
> 
> I think we already have a tendency to micro-optimize non-critical code
> too much in Git's codebase, so it's not necessarily a step in the right
> direction.
> 
> In conclusion, I don't have a conclusion, sorry ;-).