Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] list-objects-filter: teach tree:# how to handle >0

> > Any reason for moving "case LOFS_BLOB" (and "case LOFS_BEGIN_TREE"
> > below) after LOFS_END_TREE?
> 
> I put LOFS_BLOB and after LOFS_END_TREE since that is the order in all 
> the other filter logic functions. I put LOFS_BEGIN_TREE at the end 
> (which is different from the other filter logic functions) because it's 
> usually better to put simpler things before longer or more complex 
> things. LOFS_BEGIN_TREE is much more complex and if it were not the last 
> switch section, it would tend to hide the sections that come after it.
> 
> FWIW, I consider this the coding corollary of the end-weight problem in 
> linguistics - see https://www.thoughtco.com/end-weight-grammar-1690594 - 
> this is not my original idea, but something from the book Perl Best 
> Practices, although that book only mentioned it in the context of 
> ordering clauses in single statements rather than ordering entire blocks.

> > Here, filter_trees_update_omits() is
> > only ever used to remove a blob from the omits set, since once this blob
> > is encountered with include_it == true, it is marked as LOFR_MARK_SEEN
> > and will not be traversed again.
> It is possible that include_it can be false and then in a later 
> invocation it can be true. In that case, the blob will be added to the 
> set and then removed from it.