Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] Make sha1_array_append take a struct object_id *

> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> 
> > Convert the callers to pass struct object_id by changing the function
> > declaration and definition and applying the following semantic patch:
> >
> > @@
> > expression E1, E2, E3;
> > @@
> > - sha1_array_append(E1, E2[E3].hash)
> > + sha1_array_append(E1, E2 + E3)
> >
> > @@
> > expression E1, E2;
> > @@
> > - sha1_array_append(E1, E2.hash)
> > + sha1_array_append(E1, &E2)
> 
> I noticed something similar in the change to bisect.c while reading
> the previous step, and I suspect that the above two rules leave
> somewhat inconsistent and harder-to-read result.  Wouldn't it make
> the result more readable if the former rule were
> 
>     -sha1_array_append(E1, E2[E3].hash)
>     +sha1_array_append(E1, &E2[E3])
> 
> 
> FWIW, the bit that made me read it twice in the previous step was
> this change
> 
> -		strbuf_addstr(&joined_hexs, sha1_to_hex(array->sha1[i]));
> +		strbuf_addstr(&joined_hexs, oid_to_hex(array->oid + i));
> 
> which I would have written &(array->oid[i]) instead.
> 
> After all, the original written by a human said E2[E3].hash (or
> array->sha1[i]) because to the human's mind, E2 is a series of
> things that can be indexed with an int E3, and even though 
> 
>     *(E2 + E3)
>     E2[E3]
>     E3[E2]
> 
> all mean the same thing, the human decided that E2[E3] is the most
> natural way to express this particular reference to an item in the
> array.  &E2[E3] would keep that intention by the original author
> better than E2 + E3.