From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:25:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Update information about <format> in git-for-each-ref
Message-ID: <45485A0F.3040807@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <200610282323.57797.jnareb@gmail.com>

Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> [PATCH] for-each-ref: epoch and epochdate
>>
>> This adds "epoch" (which is parallel to "tagger" or "committer")
>> and "epochdate" (corresponds to "taggerdate" and
>> "committerdate").
>>
>> As other "date" fields, "epochdate" sorts numerically
>> and displays human readably
> 
> I was thinking about having only "epochdate" (corresponding to either 
> "taggerdate" or "committerdate"), only named "epoch". There is I think 
> no need for field which would be "tagger" or "committer", and 
> especially not named "epoch" ;-).
> 
> Otherwise looks fine, thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> BTW. I had to translate
> +       if (strcmp(who, "tagger") && strcmp(who, "committer"))
> to
> +       if (strcmp(who, "tagger") == 0 || strcmp(who, "committer") == 0)
> to understand it. But this is probably my lack of contact with such
> C idioms.


But this does the exact opposite. The condition will now be true if the 
'who' variable holds a pointer to a string that is either "tagger" or 
"committer", whereas it used to be true for strings that were anything 
*but* any of those.

"Compare" (as in "strcmp") also translates to "are equal to" and isn't 
only a verb. This is unfortunate for people who aren't natively english 
and has had me confused on many a long night. I once ended up doing a 
macro called "string_matches" just to wrap my head around an insanely 
long conditional with too many strcmp() with about half of them negated 
by !.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se