Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] do not overuse strbuf_split*()

> >   2. Is the handling of repeated delimiters the same? E.g., if I split
> >      on "/" and we see "foo//bar", do both split implementations yield
> >      the same output. I could see either of ("foo", "", "bar") and
> >      ("foo", "bar") being produced.
> 
> Same between?  strbuf_split*() seems to be happy to produce an empty
> piece in the result (and there is no "omit empty ones" feature).
> You can choose with STRING_LIST_SPLIT_NOEMPTY both results, but for
> a straight conversion, the vanilla one without that flag would do
> what we want, I think.

> > Some of these sites do strbuf_rtrim() on the split pieces. But
> > STRING_LIST_SPLIT_TRIM does both left and right. Is this OK? I think so
> > because in both cases we are already splitting on space, so we wouldn't
> > expect left-hand spaces (of course you could have a stray tab or
> > something, but I suspect the new code matches the intent more closely).
> 
> I did wonder about these "rtrim-only" callsites strbuf_split(), but
> I did not think they needed ltrim, since they were splitting at SP
> and rejected when the element were empty (remember, strbuf_split()
> happily creates an empty element in the result).
> 
> Their use of rtrim() is primarily when they split at SP they want to
> remove that SP (remember, another misdesign of strbuf_split() is
> that it leaves the delimiter itself at the end of each split piece).
> Both 05/11 step for merge-tree and 06/11 step for notes are good
> examples.

> So in short, yes, the new code is being a bit more lenient (the
> original parsers were more strict and insisted on non-trimming
> behaviour).  We might consider tightening them by removing the
> STRING_LIST_SPLIT_TRIM bit to be more faithful to the original, but
> as you may have noticed, doing so would make it more strict at the
> right end.  The original that split at SP and then rtrimmed allowed
> trailing HT after the data to be removed, but I do not think it was
> part of the designed behaviour of the original anyway.  So I am
> inclined to say we should probably drop STRING_LIST_SPLIT_TRIM;
> nobody would scream.